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

I haven't seen much lately in support of so-called "child support" here
lately. Apparently, all the advocates must have meandered over to
alt.feminazi or similar site.

I think it shows that we are the majority. The problem is, none of the laws
are put up to a vote. There are state CS committies, but they are flooded
with the nazies of which you speak, because they don't have to work during
the day while most fathers do. Then there is the fact that NCPs (not all)
are the laziest bunch of people I have ever met when it comes to fighting
for the cause. Bitching is easy, but I mainly see all talk, no show.
Imagine what we could do if we left the couch.

-Drew

"Chris" wrote in message
news:e4aKa.79896$%42.8917@fed1read06...
I haven't seen much lately in support of so-called "child support" here
lately. Apparently, all the advocates must have meandered over to
alt.feminazi or similar site.

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:sUbKa.169699$eJ2.88345@fed1read07...
I think it shows that we are the majority. The problem is, none of the
laws
are put up to a vote. There are state CS committies, but they are flooded
with the nazies of which you speak, because they don't have to work during
the day while most fathers do. Then there is the fact that NCPs (not all)
are the laziest bunch of people I have ever met when it comes to fighting
for the cause. Bitching is easy, but I mainly see all talk, no show.
Imagine what we could do if we left the couch.

-Drew

Have you talked to other men on this subject that are not familiar with the
system recently? Talk to them about this subject and see how far you get.
You will realize how ignorant most men are in believing the system is fair,
is for the children, you must be misinformed or a better lawyer will solve
all your problems. The propaganda that most are brainwashed to believe is a
major hurdle for fathers to get over which is why public protests are
crucial for change to succeed.

As far as those that are aware, what the hell are these men so afraid of
that they will not come out publicly against the feminazi and these polices?
At what point in history did men change that they seek approval from the
feminazi rather than stand up for their own rights?

Most NCPs I have met agree with the NCP posters here and are just as
outraged almost to frenzy when you discuss the subject of lifestyle child
support and visitation. But why do men fail to organize and protest? Why
is the mention of public protest looked upon by some men as being so foreign
or as a sign of weakness?

I think the liberal feminist media portrayal of male protesters has alot to
do with men believing if they protest it is laughable and they are behaving
like women. There is also the propaganda that we are all to believe this is
still the same land of freedom as it was 200 years ago. So any protest is
somehow subconsciuosly believed to be unpatrioitic or un-American when the
reality is the founding fathers would likely be outraged by these policies.

I find it ironic that the American NCP fathers are so passive on this
subject while the British NCP fathers are taking a public stand against this
injustice.


"Chris" wrote in message
news:e4aKa.79896$%42.8917@fed1read06...
I haven't seen much lately in support of so-called "child support" here
lately. Apparently, all the advocates must have meandered over to
alt.feminazi or similar site.

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

"Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:sUbKa.169699$eJ2.88345@fed1read07...
I think it shows that we are the majority. The problem is, none of the
laws
are put up to a vote. There are state CS committies, but they are
flooded
with the nazies of which you speak, because they don't have to work
during
the day while most fathers do. Then there is the fact that NCPs (not
all)
are the laziest bunch of people I have ever met when it comes to
fighting
for the cause. Bitching is easy, but I mainly see all talk, no show.
Imagine what we could do if we left the couch.

-Drew

Have you talked to other men on this subject that are not familiar with
the
system recently? Talk to them about this subject and see how far you get.
======
The answer may lie with the corollary of slaves. Many slaves did not support
the
movement toward freedom because they had been conditioned to believe their
role of
slaves was their legitimate place in the social fabric. Men have also been
conditioned to believe that their
role in the family is of provider. They view this as their legitimate place
in the social fabric. While there has been much ado
about women making the decision to be SAH moms, men very frequently desire
the woman to SAH and view it as the proper role for the wife/mother. It is
not uncommon for men view a working mother as their failure to provide
enough income
so that the mother can stay at home to rear the children.
===
===

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

From: "Chris"
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

Chris writes:

I haven't seen much lately in support of so-called "child support" here
lately. Apparently, all the advocates must have meandered over to
alt.feminazi or similar site.


Check your calendar, or look out a window.
Its SUMMER.

They aren't sitting home on the computer, they are out vacationing, and, doing
other such things, with YOUR MONEY.

http://www.geocities.com/nadacomin/

Yeah, sure....

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.

.... those aren't the family pants, it's just a stylish pants-suit - right?
(wink, wink)

Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06...

"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?




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.

I agree with the Teach. You don't lose because you stand up, you lose more
if you don't. Sure, the courts would like it if you didn't show, it makes
the paperwork easier to process. The fact is, you will always be better off
if you show up and fight. Maybe not always, but you improve your odds
greatly. I have yet to hear about a father getting jailed because he went
to court to stand up for himself. I know things are unfair, but unless you
have evidence of this, I wouldn't spout bold mis-information, because the
Father's Movement needs to play on a higher level than N.O.W. in order to
keep our credibility.

-Drew

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06...

"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?




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
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06...

"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.