CS gets women too

[SteveT]

I have a good friend in PA who got into deep trouble with CS a few
weeks ago. So one thing is I found this group and read a lot of your
stuff.

I want to tell you that my friend is a woman, the mother. Women might
be a minority among NCPs but I can tell you that they are being
persecuted just as heartlessy as any man.

SteveT

[Gini52]

In article >, SteveT says...
>
>I have a good friend in PA who got into deep trouble with CS a few
>weeks ago. So one thing is I found this group and read a lot of your
>stuff.
>
>I want to tell you that my friend is a woman, the mother. Women might
>be a minority among NCPs but I can tell you that they are being
>persecuted just as heartlessy as any man.
===
Well, maybe not quite as heartlessly. I imagine some states are becoming
embarrassed by their lack of enforcement with NC mothers but those mothers have
been let slide for many many years. When I was separated from my ex in the early
90s, I lived in a 4 unit apt. building in which there were two custodial dads,
one custodial mom and me(I had no custody order--my kids were floaters). The
custodial mom was on good terms with her ex and she had no support order by
choice. Neither of the CP dads received support. One had an order but the mom
was thousands in arrears and there was zero enforcement (this was PA). That dad
had the entire parenting on his shoulders as the mother abandoned the family
when the two kids were still in diapers. She never visited or sent money--not
even on their birthdays or Christmas. I felt so sad for them. That dad really
struggled financially, working two jobs to stay afloat, but he was very
dedicated to raising those kids and did a great job with them.
===
===
>
>SteveT

[Gini52]

In article >, SteveT says...
>
>I have a good friend in PA who got into deep trouble with CS a few
>weeks ago. So one thing is I found this group and read a lot of your
>stuff.
>
>I want to tell you that my friend is a woman, the mother. Women might
>be a minority among NCPs but I can tell you that they are being
>persecuted just as heartlessy as any man.
===
Well, maybe not quite as heartlessly. I imagine some states are becoming
embarrassed by their lack of enforcement with NC mothers but those mothers have
been let slide for many many years. When I was separated from my ex in the early
90s, I lived in a 4 unit apt. building in which there were two custodial dads,
one custodial mom and me(I had no custody order--my kids were floaters). The
custodial mom was on good terms with her ex and she had no support order by
choice. Neither of the CP dads received support. One had an order but the mom
was thousands in arrears and there was zero enforcement (this was PA). That dad
had the entire parenting on his shoulders as the mother abandoned the family
when the two kids were still in diapers. She never visited or sent money--not
even on their birthdays or Christmas. I felt so sad for them. That dad really
struggled financially, working two jobs to stay afloat, but he was very
dedicated to raising those kids and did a great job with them.
===
===
>
>SteveT

[SteveT]

Well, my friend was paying her CS until she became very sick. Its a
long, sad story & it wasn't my purpose to tell it, like I think a lot
of people here have already suffered the same kind of injustice.

My problem with this group is that so many people who post here
deigrate women. With good reason in some cases I'm sure, but it
doesn't help anybody. I mean, CS is an unreasonable system & most
responsible NCPs can only fail by it. It needs to be changed, but
nobody is going to listen to a bunch of guys who do a very good
impression of sexist pigs.

So I write to say that women suffer too. Its not just men's rights
that are being violated, its human rights. Lets write some stuff that
politicians will have to take seriously!

SteveT

On 25 Nov 2003 20:32:22 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>===
>Well, maybe not quite as heartlessly. I imagine some states are becoming
>embarrassed by their lack of enforcement with NC mothers but those mothers have
>been let slide for many many years. When I was separated from my ex in the early
>90s, I lived in a 4 unit apt. building in which there were two custodial dads,
>one custodial mom and me(I had no custody order--my kids were floaters). The
>custodial mom was on good terms with her ex and she had no support order by
>choice. Neither of the CP dads received support. One had an order but the mom
>was thousands in arrears and there was zero enforcement (this was PA). That dad
>had the entire parenting on his shoulders as the mother abandoned the family
>when the two kids were still in diapers. She never visited or sent money--not
>even on their birthdays or Christmas. I felt so sad for them. That dad really
>struggled financially, working two jobs to stay afloat, but he was very
>dedicated to raising those kids and did a great job with them.

[SteveT]

Well, my friend was paying her CS until she became very sick. Its a
long, sad story & it wasn't my purpose to tell it, like I think a lot
of people here have already suffered the same kind of injustice.

My problem with this group is that so many people who post here
deigrate women. With good reason in some cases I'm sure, but it
doesn't help anybody. I mean, CS is an unreasonable system & most
responsible NCPs can only fail by it. It needs to be changed, but
nobody is going to listen to a bunch of guys who do a very good
impression of sexist pigs.

So I write to say that women suffer too. Its not just men's rights
that are being violated, its human rights. Lets write some stuff that
politicians will have to take seriously!

SteveT

On 25 Nov 2003 20:32:22 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>===
>Well, maybe not quite as heartlessly. I imagine some states are becoming
>embarrassed by their lack of enforcement with NC mothers but those mothers have
>been let slide for many many years. When I was separated from my ex in the early
>90s, I lived in a 4 unit apt. building in which there were two custodial dads,
>one custodial mom and me(I had no custody order--my kids were floaters). The
>custodial mom was on good terms with her ex and she had no support order by
>choice. Neither of the CP dads received support. One had an order but the mom
>was thousands in arrears and there was zero enforcement (this was PA). That dad
>had the entire parenting on his shoulders as the mother abandoned the family
>when the two kids were still in diapers. She never visited or sent money--not
>even on their birthdays or Christmas. I felt so sad for them. That dad really
>struggled financially, working two jobs to stay afloat, but he was very
>dedicated to raising those kids and did a great job with them.

[Kenneth S.]

The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.

There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
different if any significant number of women were the target of these
oppressive enforcement techniques.

The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.

There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
women.

So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
wanted list).

I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
quo.



SteveT wrote:
>
> Well, my friend was paying her CS until she became very sick. Its a
> long, sad story & it wasn't my purpose to tell it, like I think a lot
> of people here have already suffered the same kind of injustice.
>
> My problem with this group is that so many people who post here
> deigrate women. With good reason in some cases I'm sure, but it
> doesn't help anybody. I mean, CS is an unreasonable system & most
> responsible NCPs can only fail by it. It needs to be changed, but
> nobody is going to listen to a bunch of guys who do a very good
> impression of sexist pigs.
>
> So I write to say that women suffer too. Its not just men's rights
> that are being violated, its human rights. Lets write some stuff that
> politicians will have to take seriously!
>
> SteveT
>
> On 25 Nov 2003 20:32:22 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
> >===
> >Well, maybe not quite as heartlessly. I imagine some states are becoming
> >embarrassed by their lack of enforcement with NC mothers but those mothers have
> >been let slide for many many years. When I was separated from my ex in the early
> >90s, I lived in a 4 unit apt. building in which there were two custodial dads,
> >one custodial mom and me(I had no custody order--my kids were floaters). The
> >custodial mom was on good terms with her ex and she had no support order by
> >choice. Neither of the CP dads received support. One had an order but the mom
> >was thousands in arrears and there was zero enforcement (this was PA). That dad
> >had the entire parenting on his shoulders as the mother abandoned the family
> >when the two kids were still in diapers. She never visited or sent money--not
> >even on their birthdays or Christmas. I felt so sad for them. That dad really
> >struggled financially, working two jobs to stay afloat, but he was very
> >dedicated to raising those kids and did a great job with them.

[Kenneth S.]

The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.

There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
different if any significant number of women were the target of these
oppressive enforcement techniques.

The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.

There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
women.

So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
wanted list).

I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
quo.



SteveT wrote:
>
> Well, my friend was paying her CS until she became very sick. Its a
> long, sad story & it wasn't my purpose to tell it, like I think a lot
> of people here have already suffered the same kind of injustice.
>
> My problem with this group is that so many people who post here
> deigrate women. With good reason in some cases I'm sure, but it
> doesn't help anybody. I mean, CS is an unreasonable system & most
> responsible NCPs can only fail by it. It needs to be changed, but
> nobody is going to listen to a bunch of guys who do a very good
> impression of sexist pigs.
>
> So I write to say that women suffer too. Its not just men's rights
> that are being violated, its human rights. Lets write some stuff that
> politicians will have to take seriously!
>
> SteveT
>
> On 25 Nov 2003 20:32:22 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
> >===
> >Well, maybe not quite as heartlessly. I imagine some states are becoming
> >embarrassed by their lack of enforcement with NC mothers but those mothers have
> >been let slide for many many years. When I was separated from my ex in the early
> >90s, I lived in a 4 unit apt. building in which there were two custodial dads,
> >one custodial mom and me(I had no custody order--my kids were floaters). The
> >custodial mom was on good terms with her ex and she had no support order by
> >choice. Neither of the CP dads received support. One had an order but the mom
> >was thousands in arrears and there was zero enforcement (this was PA). That dad
> >had the entire parenting on his shoulders as the mother abandoned the family
> >when the two kids were still in diapers. She never visited or sent money--not
> >even on their birthdays or Christmas. I felt so sad for them. That dad really
> >struggled financially, working two jobs to stay afloat, but he was very
> >dedicated to raising those kids and did a great job with them.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...


> So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> (although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> wanted list).

At one point I found a reference to the client demographics nationally
published by the Federal CSE agency. They showed their client numbers
(those receiving CS) as being 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and 7% non-biological
parent such as aunts, uncles, and grandparents. One could assume from those
numbers that at least 85% of CS paid is paid by fathers, at least 8% is paid
by mothers, and an additional 7% is paid by a mix of mother/father
combinations paying a third party.

I tried to find this statistic the other day, and unfortunately didn't
stumble across it. But it should still be on the Feds site somewhere.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...


> So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> (although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> wanted list).

At one point I found a reference to the client demographics nationally
published by the Federal CSE agency. They showed their client numbers
(those receiving CS) as being 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and 7% non-biological
parent such as aunts, uncles, and grandparents. One could assume from those
numbers that at least 85% of CS paid is paid by fathers, at least 8% is paid
by mothers, and an additional 7% is paid by a mix of mother/father
combinations paying a third party.

I tried to find this statistic the other day, and unfortunately didn't
stumble across it. But it should still be on the Feds site somewhere.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> > statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> > receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> > of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> > (although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> > utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> > affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> > wanted list).
>
> At one point I found a reference to the client demographics nationally
> published by the Federal CSE agency. They showed their client numbers
> (those receiving CS) as being 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and 7%
non-biological
> parent such as aunts, uncles, and grandparents. One could assume from
those
> numbers that at least 85% of CS paid is paid by fathers, at least 8% is
paid
> by mothers, and an additional 7% is paid by a mix of mother/father
> combinations paying a third party.
>
> I tried to find this statistic the other day, and unfortunately didn't
> stumble across it. But it should still be on the Feds site somewhere.

Just for clarity - that's the number of people receiving and paying CS, not
the amount of CS money being received or paid.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> > statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> > receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> > of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> > (although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> > utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> > affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> > wanted list).
>
> At one point I found a reference to the client demographics nationally
> published by the Federal CSE agency. They showed their client numbers
> (those receiving CS) as being 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and 7%
non-biological
> parent such as aunts, uncles, and grandparents. One could assume from
those
> numbers that at least 85% of CS paid is paid by fathers, at least 8% is
paid
> by mothers, and an additional 7% is paid by a mix of mother/father
> combinations paying a third party.
>
> I tried to find this statistic the other day, and unfortunately didn't
> stumble across it. But it should still be on the Feds site somewhere.

Just for clarity - that's the number of people receiving and paying CS, not
the amount of CS money being received or paid.

[SteveT]

Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
than it has with anything else.

But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?

I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
matters.

SteveT

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:31:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
wrote:

>The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
>the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
>against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.
>
> There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
>overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
>reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
>different if any significant number of women were the target of these
>oppressive enforcement techniques.
>
> The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
>withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
>pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
>as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
>present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
>men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
>scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.
>
> There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
>fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
>status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
>acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
>women.
>
> So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
>statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
>receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
>of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
>(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
>utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
>affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
>wanted list).
>
> I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
>After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
>that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
>have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
>effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
>unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
>the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
>to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
>of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
>quo.
>

[SteveT]

Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
than it has with anything else.

But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?

I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
matters.

SteveT

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:31:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
wrote:

>The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
>the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
>against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.
>
> There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
>overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
>reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
>different if any significant number of women were the target of these
>oppressive enforcement techniques.
>
> The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
>withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
>pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
>as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
>present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
>men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
>scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.
>
> There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
>fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
>status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
>acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
>women.
>
> So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
>statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
>receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
>of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
>(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
>utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
>affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
>wanted list).
>
> I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
>After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
>that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
>have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
>effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
>unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
>the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
>to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
>of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
>quo.
>

[Kenneth S.]

Women are not just in a minority, Steve, as noncustodial parents
required to pay CS, but they are in a very TINY minority. From your
e-mail address, it seems that you are in Britain, and I am sure the
situation there is the same as in the U.S.

In the U.S. there used to be something called the "tender years"
doctrine, which provided a guarantee of maternal custody. The
philosophy was that children of tender years were better off with their
mothers. Officially, that doctrine has been abolished. However, in
reality, it continues unchanged. Judges are supposed to decide who is
the better parent, but they almost invariably conclude that it is the
mother. Fathers, of course, know this, so they generally don't get
involved in custody fights. (Custody battles are fights in the same
sense that bullfights are fights -- there's never any doubt about which
side will win.)

Keeping taxes down by preventing mothers from going on welfare is, as
you suggest, one of the overt reasons for government forcing fathers to
pay CS. However, when you see what happens, and what is said about the
subject, you can understand that a more important element is offering
women the widest range of options, including the option to expel their
husbands from the family. That is seen most clearly when anyone points
out that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family, and asks
why the prime objective of government policy isn't to protect two-parent
families, instead of providing incentives for their breakup. Then the
defenders of the status quo are flushed out into the open. They say
things that boil down to insisting that women must not be denied the
option to expel the children's father from the family.

As to why the system continues as it does, I think the factor you
mention -- ignorance about how it works -- is a major reason. Before I
got caught up in it, I had no idea about what went on. I had no
sympathy for the "deadbeat dads" who are periodically rounded up by the
police in the area where I live -- in full view of the invited TV
cameramen, of course. I didn't know that the vast majority of fathers
who don't pay CS, CAN'T pay, because they are impoverished themselves.
Nor did I know that the great majority of fatherless families are
created by mothers, not by the actions of fathers.

I don't think it's correct, in the U.S. at least, to suggest that the
system continues because it's what most people want. A far more
important factor is that the money is received by mothers and paid by
fathers. Not only do mothers belong to the politically correct sex and
are thought of as victims, but there are several feminist organizations
that become intensively involved as soon as there is even a whiff of
reform in the areas of CS or child custody. By contrast, fathers have
no effective special interest group. As a result, politicians, judges,
and bureaucrats don't care what fathers think, and have no regard for
fathers' rights. The battle for reform is over before it even begins.


SteveT wrote:
>
> Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> than it has with anything else.
>
> But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
>
> I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
> NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
> support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
> stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
> matters.
>
> SteveT
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:31:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
> wrote:
>
> >The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
> >the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
> >against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.
> >
> > There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
> >overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
> >reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
> >different if any significant number of women were the target of these
> >oppressive enforcement techniques.
> >
> > The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
> >withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
> >pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
> >as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
> >present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
> >men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
> >scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.
> >
> > There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
> >fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
> >status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
> >acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
> >women.
> >
> > So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> >statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> >receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> >of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> >(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> >utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> >affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> >wanted list).
> >
> > I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
> >After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
> >that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
> >have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
> >effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
> >unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
> >the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
> >to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
> >of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
> >quo.
> >

[Kenneth S.]

Women are not just in a minority, Steve, as noncustodial parents
required to pay CS, but they are in a very TINY minority. From your
e-mail address, it seems that you are in Britain, and I am sure the
situation there is the same as in the U.S.

In the U.S. there used to be something called the "tender years"
doctrine, which provided a guarantee of maternal custody. The
philosophy was that children of tender years were better off with their
mothers. Officially, that doctrine has been abolished. However, in
reality, it continues unchanged. Judges are supposed to decide who is
the better parent, but they almost invariably conclude that it is the
mother. Fathers, of course, know this, so they generally don't get
involved in custody fights. (Custody battles are fights in the same
sense that bullfights are fights -- there's never any doubt about which
side will win.)

Keeping taxes down by preventing mothers from going on welfare is, as
you suggest, one of the overt reasons for government forcing fathers to
pay CS. However, when you see what happens, and what is said about the
subject, you can understand that a more important element is offering
women the widest range of options, including the option to expel their
husbands from the family. That is seen most clearly when anyone points
out that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family, and asks
why the prime objective of government policy isn't to protect two-parent
families, instead of providing incentives for their breakup. Then the
defenders of the status quo are flushed out into the open. They say
things that boil down to insisting that women must not be denied the
option to expel the children's father from the family.

As to why the system continues as it does, I think the factor you
mention -- ignorance about how it works -- is a major reason. Before I
got caught up in it, I had no idea about what went on. I had no
sympathy for the "deadbeat dads" who are periodically rounded up by the
police in the area where I live -- in full view of the invited TV
cameramen, of course. I didn't know that the vast majority of fathers
who don't pay CS, CAN'T pay, because they are impoverished themselves.
Nor did I know that the great majority of fatherless families are
created by mothers, not by the actions of fathers.

I don't think it's correct, in the U.S. at least, to suggest that the
system continues because it's what most people want. A far more
important factor is that the money is received by mothers and paid by
fathers. Not only do mothers belong to the politically correct sex and
are thought of as victims, but there are several feminist organizations
that become intensively involved as soon as there is even a whiff of
reform in the areas of CS or child custody. By contrast, fathers have
no effective special interest group. As a result, politicians, judges,
and bureaucrats don't care what fathers think, and have no regard for
fathers' rights. The battle for reform is over before it even begins.


SteveT wrote:
>
> Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> than it has with anything else.
>
> But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
>
> I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
> NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
> support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
> stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
> matters.
>
> SteveT
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:31:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
> wrote:
>
> >The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
> >the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
> >against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.
> >
> > There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
> >overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
> >reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
> >different if any significant number of women were the target of these
> >oppressive enforcement techniques.
> >
> > The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
> >withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
> >pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
> >as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
> >present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
> >men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
> >scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.
> >
> > There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
> >fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
> >status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
> >acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
> >women.
> >
> > So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> >statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> >receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> >of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> >(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> >utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> >affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> >wanted list).
> >
> > I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
> >After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
> >that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
> >have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
> >effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
> >unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
> >the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
> >to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
> >of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
> >quo.
> >

[The Dave©]

> SteveT wrote:
> Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> than it has with anything else.
>
> But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
>
> I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
> NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
> support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
> stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
> matters.

Also, I believe, being the emotional issue that it is makes it even
harder to get reasonable and rational arguments across.

[The Dave©]

> SteveT wrote:
> Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> than it has with anything else.
>
> But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
>
> I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
> NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
> support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
> stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
> matters.

Also, I believe, being the emotional issue that it is makes it even
harder to get reasonable and rational arguments across.

[Gini]

"SteveT" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> than it has with anything else.
>
> But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
===
They don't know--unless they've had a case in family court in the past 5-10
years.
When I talked to folks about "our" case, they were shocked to learn
how much support we paid, how poorly my husband was treated and that we
lost credit for 7k in CS payments when we had receipts. Most folks
still believe the courts are just going after "deadbeat dads" and have no
concept of deadbroke dads. I have alway contended that if people knew how
fathers in general were being treated by the system, they would be very
supportive
of change.
===
===

[Gini]

"SteveT" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> than it has with anything else.
>
> But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
===
They don't know--unless they've had a case in family court in the past 5-10
years.
When I talked to folks about "our" case, they were shocked to learn
how much support we paid, how poorly my husband was treated and that we
lost credit for 7k in CS payments when we had receipts. Most folks
still believe the courts are just going after "deadbeat dads" and have no
concept of deadbroke dads. I have alway contended that if people knew how
fathers in general were being treated by the system, they would be very
supportive
of change.
===
===

[TeacherMama]

"Gini" > wrote in message >...
> "SteveT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> > that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> > some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> > parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> > than it has with anything else.
> >
> > But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> > because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> > they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> > don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> > to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
> ===
> They don't know--unless they've had a case in family court in the past 5-10
> years.
> When I talked to folks about "our" case, they were shocked to learn
> how much support we paid, how poorly my husband was treated and that we
> lost credit for 7k in CS payments when we had receipts. Most folks
> still believe the courts are just going after "deadbeat dads" and have no
> concept of deadbroke dads. I have alway contended that if people knew how
> fathers in general were being treated by the system, they would be very
> supportive
> of change.
> ===
> ===

I agree. I certainly had no idea of how outrageous the system was to
fathers. When my husband found out about his 13 year old daughter, he
was devastated that he had lost all of her growing up years, and was
glad to help support her. We were very fortunate that he was only
charged for 2 years of arrearages. Recently we wanted to refinance
our home to get a better rate. But there is a lien on our home for
the entire amount of the arrearages (the 2 years) even though quite a
bit has been paid. The CS office refused to permit the refinance (to
sublimate their claim). They insisted that the entire amount must be
paid. Yeah, right--like we have that much money just laying around.
The refi agent told me that they were very rude to her--that they
spoke in a denigrating way of the bum who couldn't even keep his child
support paid--even though he has never missed a payment! They do it
because they can-- sometimes I wonder if there are any just, caring
people working in the system. Or if they all have to fail a
personality test to get the job!

[TeacherMama]

"Gini" > wrote in message >...
> "SteveT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> > that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> > some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> > parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> > than it has with anything else.
> >
> > But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> > because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> > they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> > don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> > to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
> ===
> They don't know--unless they've had a case in family court in the past 5-10
> years.
> When I talked to folks about "our" case, they were shocked to learn
> how much support we paid, how poorly my husband was treated and that we
> lost credit for 7k in CS payments when we had receipts. Most folks
> still believe the courts are just going after "deadbeat dads" and have no
> concept of deadbroke dads. I have alway contended that if people knew how
> fathers in general were being treated by the system, they would be very
> supportive
> of change.
> ===
> ===

I agree. I certainly had no idea of how outrageous the system was to
fathers. When my husband found out about his 13 year old daughter, he
was devastated that he had lost all of her growing up years, and was
glad to help support her. We were very fortunate that he was only
charged for 2 years of arrearages. Recently we wanted to refinance
our home to get a better rate. But there is a lien on our home for
the entire amount of the arrearages (the 2 years) even though quite a
bit has been paid. The CS office refused to permit the refinance (to
sublimate their claim). They insisted that the entire amount must be
paid. Yeah, right--like we have that much money just laying around.
The refi agent told me that they were very rude to her--that they
spoke in a denigrating way of the bum who couldn't even keep his child
support paid--even though he has never missed a payment! They do it
because they can-- sometimes I wonder if there are any just, caring
people working in the system. Or if they all have to fail a
personality test to get the job!

[Melvin Gamble]

It has little to do with "arrears"...

SteveT wrote:
>
> Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> than it has with anything else.
>
> But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?

.... people don't realise what can happen to children and their fathers
when the system WORKS and there are no arrears. People are under the
delusion that CS is only fair and that it's "for the kids" - until the
general public is educated to the falacy of both ideas, things will
remain as they are.

> I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
> NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
> support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
> stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
> matters.

The message just plain isn't getting to the public. Until NCP's go on a
"tell everyone you know everything you know about CS and custody" and
start hitting the parking lots with flyers to stick on windshields, the
truth is going to stay in the hearts of the few who suffer it.

Mel Gamble

> SteveT
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:31:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
> wrote:
>
> >The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
> >the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
> >against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.
> >
> > There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
> >overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
> >reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
> >different if any significant number of women were the target of these
> >oppressive enforcement techniques.
> >
> > The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
> >withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
> >pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
> >as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
> >present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
> >men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
> >scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.
> >
> > There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
> >fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
> >status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
> >acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
> >women.
> >
> > So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> >statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> >receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> >of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> >(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> >utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> >affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> >wanted list).
> >
> > I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
> >After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
> >that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
> >have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
> >effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
> >unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
> >the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
> >to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
> >of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
> >quo.
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

It has little to do with "arrears"...

SteveT wrote:
>
> Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> than it has with anything else.
>
> But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?

.... people don't realise what can happen to children and their fathers
when the system WORKS and there are no arrears. People are under the
delusion that CS is only fair and that it's "for the kids" - until the
general public is educated to the falacy of both ideas, things will
remain as they are.

> I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
> NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
> support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
> stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
> matters.

The message just plain isn't getting to the public. Until NCP's go on a
"tell everyone you know everything you know about CS and custody" and
start hitting the parking lots with flyers to stick on windshields, the
truth is going to stay in the hearts of the few who suffer it.

Mel Gamble

> SteveT
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:31:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
> wrote:
>
> >The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
> >the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
> >against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.
> >
> > There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
> >overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
> >reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
> >different if any significant number of women were the target of these
> >oppressive enforcement techniques.
> >
> > The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
> >withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
> >pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
> >as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
> >present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
> >men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
> >scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.
> >
> > There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
> >fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
> >status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
> >acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
> >women.
> >
> > So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> >statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> >receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> >of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> >(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> >utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> >affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> >wanted list).
> >
> > I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
> >After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
> >that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
> >have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
> >effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
> >unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
> >the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
> >to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
> >of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
> >quo.
> >

[Kenneth S.]

What you say below, Mel, is absolutely right. I think a big part of
the problem is that men are reluctant to talk in private conversations
about what is happening to them. They know that talking about their
private problems runs the risk of being labeled a whiner, and (in
particular) won't do them any good in subsequent relationships with
women. It's easier to be the strong silent type.

I'm the same way myself, even though I got my ex-wife off my payroll
several years ago, after paying her "child support" for about ten
years. However, I have spoken out in public forums about the general
issue, and I do take opportunities in private conversations to talk
about what's going on.

It's not exactly the same point, but here's a little quote that struck
a chord with me several years ago, when I first read it:

"When I was a little boy and I heard that my parents' friends were
getting divorced, I had the very clear impression that divorce was
always the man's fault. That made me feel bad about men. Only later
did I realize that the reason I thought that divorce was always the
man's fault was because it was only the women who were talking about
it."

Jack Kammer: Good Will Towards Men



Melvin Gamble wrote:
>
> It has little to do with "arrears"...
>
> SteveT wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> > that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> > some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> > parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> > than it has with anything else.
> >
> > But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> > because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> > they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> > don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> > to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
>
> ... people don't realise what can happen to children and their fathers
> when the system WORKS and there are no arrears. People are under the
> delusion that CS is only fair and that it's "for the kids" - until the
> general public is educated to the falacy of both ideas, things will
> remain as they are.
>
> > I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
> > NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
> > support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
> > stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
> > matters.
>
> The message just plain isn't getting to the public. Until NCP's go on a
> "tell everyone you know everything you know about CS and custody" and
> start hitting the parking lots with flyers to stick on windshields, the
> truth is going to stay in the hearts of the few who suffer it.
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> > SteveT
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:31:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
> > >the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
> > >against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.
> > >
> > > There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
> > >overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
> > >reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
> > >different if any significant number of women were the target of these
> > >oppressive enforcement techniques.
> > >
> > > The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
> > >withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
> > >pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
> > >as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
> > >present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
> > >men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
> > >scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.
> > >
> > > There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
> > >fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
> > >status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
> > >acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
> > >women.
> > >
> > > So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> > >statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> > >receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> > >of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> > >(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> > >utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> > >affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> > >wanted list).
> > >
> > > I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
> > >After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
> > >that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
> > >have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
> > >effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
> > >unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
> > >the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
> > >to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
> > >of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
> > >quo.
> > >

[Kenneth S.]

What you say below, Mel, is absolutely right. I think a big part of
the problem is that men are reluctant to talk in private conversations
about what is happening to them. They know that talking about their
private problems runs the risk of being labeled a whiner, and (in
particular) won't do them any good in subsequent relationships with
women. It's easier to be the strong silent type.

I'm the same way myself, even though I got my ex-wife off my payroll
several years ago, after paying her "child support" for about ten
years. However, I have spoken out in public forums about the general
issue, and I do take opportunities in private conversations to talk
about what's going on.

It's not exactly the same point, but here's a little quote that struck
a chord with me several years ago, when I first read it:

"When I was a little boy and I heard that my parents' friends were
getting divorced, I had the very clear impression that divorce was
always the man's fault. That made me feel bad about men. Only later
did I realize that the reason I thought that divorce was always the
man's fault was because it was only the women who were talking about
it."

Jack Kammer: Good Will Towards Men



Melvin Gamble wrote:
>
> It has little to do with "arrears"...
>
> SteveT wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> > that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> > some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> > parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> > than it has with anything else.
> >
> > But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> > because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> > they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> > don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> > to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
>
> ... people don't realise what can happen to children and their fathers
> when the system WORKS and there are no arrears. People are under the
> delusion that CS is only fair and that it's "for the kids" - until the
> general public is educated to the falacy of both ideas, things will
> remain as they are.
>
> > I have to think the latter is true. Which leads to the thought that
> > NCPs are not making their case in a way that gains them public
> > support. Like everything you say might be perfectly correct, but as it
> > stands the message doesn't seem to be working in the places where it
> > matters.
>
> The message just plain isn't getting to the public. Until NCP's go on a
> "tell everyone you know everything you know about CS and custody" and
> start hitting the parking lots with flyers to stick on windshields, the
> truth is going to stay in the hearts of the few who suffer it.
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> > SteveT
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:31:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The number of mothers who aren't custodial parents is quite small. Of
> > >the mothers who are NCPs, only a handful have child support orders
> > >against them. So we're talking about a very tiny group of people here.
> > >
> > > There's a very good reason why I, for one, stress the fact that, in the
> > >overwhelming majority of cases, CS is money that men pay to women. The
> > >reason is that CS -- and the way it is enforced -- would be VERY
> > >different if any significant number of women were the target of these
> > >oppressive enforcement techniques.
> > >
> > > The CS system is characterized by civil rights violations (such as
> > >withholding of CS from income and debtors' prison for those who can't
> > >pay). It is characterized by incentives for anti-social behavior (such
> > >as mothers breaking up two-parent families). The system exists in its
> > >present form only because the people whose rights are being violated are
> > >men, and because heterosexual men are one of the few remaining official
> > >scapegoat groups in the U.S. today.
> > >
> > > There's nothing sexist about calling attention to these facts. In
> > >fact, the true sexism consists in ignoring them. The defenders of the
> > >status quo WANT everyone to ignore the facts. That's why they never
> > >acknowledge that the money is going almost exclusively from men to
> > >women.
> > >
> > > So far as I am aware, the CS enforcement authorities provide no
> > >statistics about the sex of those paying the money, and the sex of those
> > >receiving it. However, you just need to look at each state's mug shots
> > >of the 10 most wanted deadbeat "parents" to see what the score is
> > >(although some years back one midwestern state, as a result of the
> > >utterly mistaken tactics of a local fathers' group, had a little
> > >affirmative action program, and found a mother to put on their most
> > >wanted list).
> > >
> > > I appreciate the concern some men have about being seen as "sexist."
> > >After all, in the U.S. 30 years of feminist propaganda have told men
> > >that being sexist is almost the worst thing they can do. However, men
> > >have to understand that accusations of sexism are one of the most
> > >effective ways feminists have of suppressing any examination of the
> > >unjustified privileges women now enjoy in domestic relations matters in
> > >the U.S. One of the first steps in reforming the system is for fathers
> > >to speak up. They must not be intimidated by the knee-jerk accusations
> > >of sexism that will be leveled by the beneficiaries of the status
> > >quo.
> > >

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gini" > wrote in message
>...
> > "SteveT" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> > > that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> > > some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> > > parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> > > than it has with anything else.
> > >
> > > But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> > > because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> > > they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> > > don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> > > to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
> > ===
> > They don't know--unless they've had a case in family court in the past
5-10
> > years.
> > When I talked to folks about "our" case, they were shocked to learn
> > how much support we paid, how poorly my husband was treated and that we
> > lost credit for 7k in CS payments when we had receipts. Most folks
> > still believe the courts are just going after "deadbeat dads" and have
no
> > concept of deadbroke dads. I have alway contended that if people knew
how
> > fathers in general were being treated by the system, they would be very
> > supportive
> > of change.
> > ===
> > ===
>
> I agree. I certainly had no idea of how outrageous the system was to
> fathers. When my husband found out about his 13 year old daughter, he
> was devastated that he had lost all of her growing up years, and was
> glad to help support her. We were very fortunate that he was only
> charged for 2 years of arrearages. Recently we wanted to refinance
> our home to get a better rate. But there is a lien on our home for
> the entire amount of the arrearages (the 2 years) even though quite a
> bit has been paid. The CS office refused to permit the refinance (to
> sublimate their claim). They insisted that the entire amount must be
> paid. Yeah, right--like we have that much money just laying around.
> The refi agent told me that they were very rude to her--that they
> spoke in a denigrating way of the bum who couldn't even keep his child
> support paid--even though he has never missed a payment! They do it
> because they can-- sometimes I wonder if there are any just, caring
> people working in the system. Or if they all have to fail a
> personality test to get the job!

For perspective, many of the CS caseworkers were on welfare before they are
hired to work for the state. (I have had several tell me they used to be on
welfare. They don't know what TANF means, but they know what welfare is.)
As you might imagine, these people come from an entirely different mindset
than the clients they are charged to serve. They resent the non-TANF
mothers who get large CS awards and they hate men because they blame men for
their lot in life.

My recommendation is to get the names of the people in management who handle
grievances and the department managers in the CS administration units and
stop dealing with the caseworkers. The managers are much more reasonable
because they understand the CS system and they have the authority to make
exceptions when they are warranted. Since you are dealing with a public
agency, they have to disclose who the managers are and how to contact them.

As an example, at one point they sent out a large lump sum check to my ex
instead of my adult daughter who was attending school. The manager, called
my ex, got the erroneous check returned, and reissued a correct check to my
daughter. The irony is this mistake occurred after the CS accounting unit
manager posted written instructions on how to handle a payment I made on the
account records following a grievance, and the caseworker still screwed it
up. Having the direct contact with the managers will pay off in spades.

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gini" > wrote in message
>...
> > "SteveT" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Thank you for that. I agree women are a minority, but I'm not sure
> > > that its got anything to do with CS. As I remember custody is about
> > > some pseudo-scientific thing from the 1940s, the mother is a "better
> > > parent". And I think CS has got more to do with keeping taxes down
> > > than it has with anything else.
> > >
> > > But, anyway, why does the system continue unchanged? It must be
> > > because most people, men and women, support the idea. Is that because
> > > they don't care about what happens to NCPs? Or is it because they
> > > don't really know how the system works, and what can actually happen
> > > to NCPs when they - almost inevitably - fall into arrears?
> > ===
> > They don't know--unless they've had a case in family court in the past
5-10
> > years.
> > When I talked to folks about "our" case, they were shocked to learn
> > how much support we paid, how poorly my husband was treated and that we
> > lost credit for 7k in CS payments when we had receipts. Most folks
> > still believe the courts are just going after "deadbeat dads" and have
no
> > concept of deadbroke dads. I have alway contended that if people knew
how
> > fathers in general were being treated by the system, they would be very
> > supportive
> > of change.
> > ===
> > ===
>
> I agree. I certainly had no idea of how outrageous the system was to
> fathers. When my husband found out about his 13 year old daughter, he
> was devastated that he had lost all of her growing up years, and was
> glad to help support her. We were very fortunate that he was only
> charged for 2 years of arrearages. Recently we wanted to refinance
> our home to get a better rate. But there is a lien on our home for
> the entire amount of the arrearages (the 2 years) even though quite a
> bit has been paid. The CS office refused to permit the refinance (to
> sublimate their claim). They insisted that the entire amount must be
> paid. Yeah, right--like we have that much money just laying around.
> The refi agent told me that they were very rude to her--that they
> spoke in a denigrating way of the bum who couldn't even keep his child
> support paid--even though he has never missed a payment! They do it
> because they can-- sometimes I wonder if there are any just, caring
> people working in the system. Or if they all have to fail a
> personality test to get the job!

For perspective, many of the CS caseworkers were on welfare before they are
hired to work for the state. (I have had several tell me they used to be on
welfare. They don't know what TANF means, but they know what welfare is.)
As you might imagine, these people come from an entirely different mindset
than the clients they are charged to serve. They resent the non-TANF
mothers who get large CS awards and they hate men because they blame men for
their lot in life.

My recommendation is to get the names of the people in management who handle
grievances and the department managers in the CS administration units and
stop dealing with the caseworkers. The managers are much more reasonable
because they understand the CS system and they have the authority to make
exceptions when they are warranted. Since you are dealing with a public
agency, they have to disclose who the managers are and how to contact them.

As an example, at one point they sent out a large lump sum check to my ex
instead of my adult daughter who was attending school. The manager, called
my ex, got the erroneous check returned, and reissued a correct check to my
daughter. The irony is this mistake occurred after the CS accounting unit
manager posted written instructions on how to handle a payment I made on the
account records following a grievance, and the caseworker still screwed it
up. Having the direct contact with the managers will pay off in spades.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> What you say below, Mel, is absolutely right. I think a big part of
> the problem is that men are reluctant to talk in private conversations
> about what is happening to them. They know that talking about their
> private problems runs the risk of being labeled a whiner, and (in
> particular) won't do them any good in subsequent relationships with
> women. It's easier to be the strong silent type.

On the very few occassions I have tried to relate my experiences in the CS
system to other people, I have never been successful. Perceptions about the
CS system are formed by high-profile government officials who make
politically motivated statements or special interest groups who are
promoting their agenda. The responses I have gotten generally fall into one
of three of categories. 1.) You should have gotten a better attorney. 2.)
The government doesn't do stuff like that to people, there must be something
else you haven't told me. Or 3.) If you'd just pay what they told you to
pay, you wouldn't have all those issues and concerns.

>
> I'm the same way myself, even though I got my ex-wife off my payroll
> several years ago, after paying her "child support" for about ten
> years. However, I have spoken out in public forums about the general
> issue, and I do take opportunities in private conversations to talk
> about what's going on.

My experience is people want to hear the good news about how CS helps
children in need, and not the issues about how support is set, collected,
mismanaged, and enforced. Even when speaking gererally, I 'd suspect your
message was filtered to you talking about your own isolated case and not the
CS system in general. The problem I see is fathers issues are pitted
against children's issues, and the children win in the minds of the general
public. The feminists are very good at stepping out of the middle of the
debate, and making it appear greedy fathers are fighting against their own
children's best interest.

>
> It's not exactly the same point, but here's a little quote that struck
> a chord with me several years ago, when I first read it:
>
> "When I was a little boy and I heard that my parents' friends were
> getting divorced, I had the very clear impression that divorce was
> always the man's fault. That made me feel bad about men. Only later
> did I realize that the reason I thought that divorce was always the
> man's fault was because it was only the women who were talking about
> it."

That quote speaks volumes. The CS system is viewed in a similar fashion.
Perceptions about it overwhelm the reality. The only way the Cs system will
change is to change the perceptions about what is does and how it operates.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> What you say below, Mel, is absolutely right. I think a big part of
> the problem is that men are reluctant to talk in private conversations
> about what is happening to them. They know that talking about their
> private problems runs the risk of being labeled a whiner, and (in
> particular) won't do them any good in subsequent relationships with
> women. It's easier to be the strong silent type.

On the very few occassions I have tried to relate my experiences in the CS
system to other people, I have never been successful. Perceptions about the
CS system are formed by high-profile government officials who make
politically motivated statements or special interest groups who are
promoting their agenda. The responses I have gotten generally fall into one
of three of categories. 1.) You should have gotten a better attorney. 2.)
The government doesn't do stuff like that to people, there must be something
else you haven't told me. Or 3.) If you'd just pay what they told you to
pay, you wouldn't have all those issues and concerns.

>
> I'm the same way myself, even though I got my ex-wife off my payroll
> several years ago, after paying her "child support" for about ten
> years. However, I have spoken out in public forums about the general
> issue, and I do take opportunities in private conversations to talk
> about what's going on.

My experience is people want to hear the good news about how CS helps
children in need, and not the issues about how support is set, collected,
mismanaged, and enforced. Even when speaking gererally, I 'd suspect your
message was filtered to you talking about your own isolated case and not the
CS system in general. The problem I see is fathers issues are pitted
against children's issues, and the children win in the minds of the general
public. The feminists are very good at stepping out of the middle of the
debate, and making it appear greedy fathers are fighting against their own
children's best interest.

>
> It's not exactly the same point, but here's a little quote that struck
> a chord with me several years ago, when I first read it:
>
> "When I was a little boy and I heard that my parents' friends were
> getting divorced, I had the very clear impression that divorce was
> always the man's fault. That made me feel bad about men. Only later
> did I realize that the reason I thought that divorce was always the
> man's fault was because it was only the women who were talking about
> it."

That quote speaks volumes. The CS system is viewed in a similar fashion.
Perceptions about it overwhelm the reality. The only way the Cs system will
change is to change the perceptions about what is does and how it operates.

[SteveT]

Custody is probably the same everywhere, But mothers don't always win
and, even though they are a minority, maybe the fact that some of them
do pay CS makes it a more universal issue.

I think we can agree that CS exists to keep mothers from going on
welfare and that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.

Now you go for the extensions, that CS gives women the option to expel
the father from the family, that they are the politically correct sex,
and they have feminist action groups to protect their interests. All
this is easy to see when your'e a victim of the system maybe. But like
you said, you didn't see it for yourself until you became a victim.

Yes, I am writing from the UK, and I don't know your country well
enough to say what the message should be. But I spent a long time
overseas with American construction companies, and what I learnt was
to keep things simple.

I suspect that most people think that after divorce everybody,
including the children, has to get by with less money. I mean, that
would seem to be the common sense conclusion. But CS doesn't work like
that at all, it works out the figures on the basis that no divorce has
occurred, and it seems that nobody knows this until they too become a
deadbeat.

I just have a feeling that there must be a way of explaining this to
people in a way that they can understand and sympathize with.

SteveT

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:57:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
wrote:

>Women are not just in a minority, Steve, as noncustodial parents
>required to pay CS, but they are in a very TINY minority. From your
>e-mail address, it seems that you are in Britain, and I am sure the
>situation there is the same as in the U.S.
>
> In the U.S. there used to be something called the "tender years"
>doctrine, which provided a guarantee of maternal custody. The
>philosophy was that children of tender years were better off with their
>mothers. Officially, that doctrine has been abolished. However, in
>reality, it continues unchanged. Judges are supposed to decide who is
>the better parent, but they almost invariably conclude that it is the
>mother. Fathers, of course, know this, so they generally don't get
>involved in custody fights. (Custody battles are fights in the same
>sense that bullfights are fights -- there's never any doubt about which
>side will win.)
>
> Keeping taxes down by preventing mothers from going on welfare is, as
>you suggest, one of the overt reasons for government forcing fathers to
>pay CS. However, when you see what happens, and what is said about the
>subject, you can understand that a more important element is offering
>women the widest range of options, including the option to expel their
>husbands from the family. That is seen most clearly when anyone points
>out that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family, and asks
>why the prime objective of government policy isn't to protect two-parent
>families, instead of providing incentives for their breakup. Then the
>defenders of the status quo are flushed out into the open. They say
>things that boil down to insisting that women must not be denied the
>option to expel the children's father from the family.
>
> As to why the system continues as it does, I think the factor you
>mention -- ignorance about how it works -- is a major reason. Before I
>got caught up in it, I had no idea about what went on. I had no
>sympathy for the "deadbeat dads" who are periodically rounded up by the
>police in the area where I live -- in full view of the invited TV
>cameramen, of course. I didn't know that the vast majority of fathers
>who don't pay CS, CAN'T pay, because they are impoverished themselves.
>Nor did I know that the great majority of fatherless families are
>created by mothers, not by the actions of fathers.
>
> I don't think it's correct, in the U.S. at least, to suggest that the
>system continues because it's what most people want. A far more
>important factor is that the money is received by mothers and paid by
>fathers. Not only do mothers belong to the politically correct sex and
>are thought of as victims, but there are several feminist organizations
>that become intensively involved as soon as there is even a whiff of
>reform in the areas of CS or child custody. By contrast, fathers have
>no effective special interest group. As a result, politicians, judges,
>and bureaucrats don't care what fathers think, and have no regard for
>fathers' rights. The battle for reform is over before it even begins.
>

[SteveT]

Custody is probably the same everywhere, But mothers don't always win
and, even though they are a minority, maybe the fact that some of them
do pay CS makes it a more universal issue.

I think we can agree that CS exists to keep mothers from going on
welfare and that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.

Now you go for the extensions, that CS gives women the option to expel
the father from the family, that they are the politically correct sex,
and they have feminist action groups to protect their interests. All
this is easy to see when your'e a victim of the system maybe. But like
you said, you didn't see it for yourself until you became a victim.

Yes, I am writing from the UK, and I don't know your country well
enough to say what the message should be. But I spent a long time
overseas with American construction companies, and what I learnt was
to keep things simple.

I suspect that most people think that after divorce everybody,
including the children, has to get by with less money. I mean, that
would seem to be the common sense conclusion. But CS doesn't work like
that at all, it works out the figures on the basis that no divorce has
occurred, and it seems that nobody knows this until they too become a
deadbeat.

I just have a feeling that there must be a way of explaining this to
people in a way that they can understand and sympathize with.

SteveT

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:57:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
wrote:

>Women are not just in a minority, Steve, as noncustodial parents
>required to pay CS, but they are in a very TINY minority. From your
>e-mail address, it seems that you are in Britain, and I am sure the
>situation there is the same as in the U.S.
>
> In the U.S. there used to be something called the "tender years"
>doctrine, which provided a guarantee of maternal custody. The
>philosophy was that children of tender years were better off with their
>mothers. Officially, that doctrine has been abolished. However, in
>reality, it continues unchanged. Judges are supposed to decide who is
>the better parent, but they almost invariably conclude that it is the
>mother. Fathers, of course, know this, so they generally don't get
>involved in custody fights. (Custody battles are fights in the same
>sense that bullfights are fights -- there's never any doubt about which
>side will win.)
>
> Keeping taxes down by preventing mothers from going on welfare is, as
>you suggest, one of the overt reasons for government forcing fathers to
>pay CS. However, when you see what happens, and what is said about the
>subject, you can understand that a more important element is offering
>women the widest range of options, including the option to expel their
>husbands from the family. That is seen most clearly when anyone points
>out that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family, and asks
>why the prime objective of government policy isn't to protect two-parent
>families, instead of providing incentives for their breakup. Then the
>defenders of the status quo are flushed out into the open. They say
>things that boil down to insisting that women must not be denied the
>option to expel the children's father from the family.
>
> As to why the system continues as it does, I think the factor you
>mention -- ignorance about how it works -- is a major reason. Before I
>got caught up in it, I had no idea about what went on. I had no
>sympathy for the "deadbeat dads" who are periodically rounded up by the
>police in the area where I live -- in full view of the invited TV
>cameramen, of course. I didn't know that the vast majority of fathers
>who don't pay CS, CAN'T pay, because they are impoverished themselves.
>Nor did I know that the great majority of fatherless families are
>created by mothers, not by the actions of fathers.
>
> I don't think it's correct, in the U.S. at least, to suggest that the
>system continues because it's what most people want. A far more
>important factor is that the money is received by mothers and paid by
>fathers. Not only do mothers belong to the politically correct sex and
>are thought of as victims, but there are several feminist organizations
>that become intensively involved as soon as there is even a whiff of
>reform in the areas of CS or child custody. By contrast, fathers have
>no effective special interest group. As a result, politicians, judges,
>and bureaucrats don't care what fathers think, and have no regard for
>fathers' rights. The battle for reform is over before it even begins.
>

[Gini52]

In article >, SteveT says...
>
>Custody is probably the same everywhere, But mothers don't always win
>and, even though they are a minority, maybe the fact that some of them
>do pay CS makes it a more universal issue.
>
>I think we can agree that CS exists to keep mothers from going on
>welfare and that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
==
I can't agree--I have yet to see one credible (US) study that indicates CS keeps
children off welfare, even though this is lauded as a prime reason for strict CS
enforcement. In fact, most welfare families were poor prior to divorce and the
CS award is not likely to be sufficient to keep the family off welfare post
divorce.
==
==

[Gini52]

In article >, SteveT says...
>
>Custody is probably the same everywhere, But mothers don't always win
>and, even though they are a minority, maybe the fact that some of them
>do pay CS makes it a more universal issue.
>
>I think we can agree that CS exists to keep mothers from going on
>welfare and that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
==
I can't agree--I have yet to see one credible (US) study that indicates CS keeps
children off welfare, even though this is lauded as a prime reason for strict CS
enforcement. In fact, most welfare families were poor prior to divorce and the
CS award is not likely to be sufficient to keep the family off welfare post
divorce.
==
==

[Kenneth S.]

I think, Steve, it IS possible to make an impact on public opinion. In
fact, from what I have seen, the British organizations representing
fathers, notably Families Need Fathers, have done so to a far greater
extent than the counterpart organizations in the U.S.

I visit the U.K. several times a year, and it was very striking to me
that, in the early days of the British Child Support Agency, the
fathers' point of view was put over in media coverage to a far greater
extent than it ever would have been in the U.S. Almost universally,
because of the bias of reporters and editors and the intimidatory power
of feminist groups, the fathers' point of view never gets any coverage
in the U.S. media.

We're not going to be able to do anything about the liberal bias in the
U.S. media. Nor can we change the the fact that stories about family
issues are nearly all written by female reporters who are very
sympathetic to the feminist point of view. The first step is get a
viable national organization that represents fathers and that can put
over their point of view in a coherent way -- as well as being able to
intimidate politicians, judges, and bureaucrats. Alas, we're a long way
off achieving that situation.

Fathers have a very strong case to make. It's just that it seldom gets
made, and when it does get made the media don't cover it.



SteveT wrote:
>
> Custody is probably the same everywhere, But mothers don't always win
> and, even though they are a minority, maybe the fact that some of them
> do pay CS makes it a more universal issue.
>
> I think we can agree that CS exists to keep mothers from going on
> welfare and that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
>
> Now you go for the extensions, that CS gives women the option to expel
> the father from the family, that they are the politically correct sex,
> and they have feminist action groups to protect their interests. All
> this is easy to see when your'e a victim of the system maybe. But like
> you said, you didn't see it for yourself until you became a victim.
>
> Yes, I am writing from the UK, and I don't know your country well
> enough to say what the message should be. But I spent a long time
> overseas with American construction companies, and what I learnt was
> to keep things simple.
>
> I suspect that most people think that after divorce everybody,
> including the children, has to get by with less money. I mean, that
> would seem to be the common sense conclusion. But CS doesn't work like
> that at all, it works out the figures on the basis that no divorce has
> occurred, and it seems that nobody knows this until they too become a
> deadbeat.
>
> I just have a feeling that there must be a way of explaining this to
> people in a way that they can understand and sympathize with.
>
> SteveT
>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:57:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
> wrote:
>
> >Women are not just in a minority, Steve, as noncustodial parents
> >required to pay CS, but they are in a very TINY minority. From your
> >e-mail address, it seems that you are in Britain, and I am sure the
> >situation there is the same as in the U.S.
> >
> > In the U.S. there used to be something called the "tender years"
> >doctrine, which provided a guarantee of maternal custody. The
> >philosophy was that children of tender years were better off with their
> >mothers. Officially, that doctrine has been abolished. However, in
> >reality, it continues unchanged. Judges are supposed to decide who is
> >the better parent, but they almost invariably conclude that it is the
> >mother. Fathers, of course, know this, so they generally don't get
> >involved in custody fights. (Custody battles are fights in the same
> >sense that bullfights are fights -- there's never any doubt about which
> >side will win.)
> >
> > Keeping taxes down by preventing mothers from going on welfare is, as
> >you suggest, one of the overt reasons for government forcing fathers to
> >pay CS. However, when you see what happens, and what is said about the
> >subject, you can understand that a more important element is offering
> >women the widest range of options, including the option to expel their
> >husbands from the family. That is seen most clearly when anyone points
> >out that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family, and asks
> >why the prime objective of government policy isn't to protect two-parent
> >families, instead of providing incentives for their breakup. Then the
> >defenders of the status quo are flushed out into the open. They say
> >things that boil down to insisting that women must not be denied the
> >option to expel the children's father from the family.
> >
> > As to why the system continues as it does, I think the factor you
> >mention -- ignorance about how it works -- is a major reason. Before I
> >got caught up in it, I had no idea about what went on. I had no
> >sympathy for the "deadbeat dads" who are periodically rounded up by the
> >police in the area where I live -- in full view of the invited TV
> >cameramen, of course. I didn't know that the vast majority of fathers
> >who don't pay CS, CAN'T pay, because they are impoverished themselves.
> >Nor did I know that the great majority of fatherless families are
> >created by mothers, not by the actions of fathers.
> >
> > I don't think it's correct, in the U.S. at least, to suggest that the
> >system continues because it's what most people want. A far more
> >important factor is that the money is received by mothers and paid by
> >fathers. Not only do mothers belong to the politically correct sex and
> >are thought of as victims, but there are several feminist organizations
> >that become intensively involved as soon as there is even a whiff of
> >reform in the areas of CS or child custody. By contrast, fathers have
> >no effective special interest group. As a result, politicians, judges,
> >and bureaucrats don't care what fathers think, and have no regard for
> >fathers' rights. The battle for reform is over before it even begins.
> >

[Kenneth S.]

I think, Steve, it IS possible to make an impact on public opinion. In
fact, from what I have seen, the British organizations representing
fathers, notably Families Need Fathers, have done so to a far greater
extent than the counterpart organizations in the U.S.

I visit the U.K. several times a year, and it was very striking to me
that, in the early days of the British Child Support Agency, the
fathers' point of view was put over in media coverage to a far greater
extent than it ever would have been in the U.S. Almost universally,
because of the bias of reporters and editors and the intimidatory power
of feminist groups, the fathers' point of view never gets any coverage
in the U.S. media.

We're not going to be able to do anything about the liberal bias in the
U.S. media. Nor can we change the the fact that stories about family
issues are nearly all written by female reporters who are very
sympathetic to the feminist point of view. The first step is get a
viable national organization that represents fathers and that can put
over their point of view in a coherent way -- as well as being able to
intimidate politicians, judges, and bureaucrats. Alas, we're a long way
off achieving that situation.

Fathers have a very strong case to make. It's just that it seldom gets
made, and when it does get made the media don't cover it.



SteveT wrote:
>
> Custody is probably the same everywhere, But mothers don't always win
> and, even though they are a minority, maybe the fact that some of them
> do pay CS makes it a more universal issue.
>
> I think we can agree that CS exists to keep mothers from going on
> welfare and that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
>
> Now you go for the extensions, that CS gives women the option to expel
> the father from the family, that they are the politically correct sex,
> and they have feminist action groups to protect their interests. All
> this is easy to see when your'e a victim of the system maybe. But like
> you said, you didn't see it for yourself until you became a victim.
>
> Yes, I am writing from the UK, and I don't know your country well
> enough to say what the message should be. But I spent a long time
> overseas with American construction companies, and what I learnt was
> to keep things simple.
>
> I suspect that most people think that after divorce everybody,
> including the children, has to get by with less money. I mean, that
> would seem to be the common sense conclusion. But CS doesn't work like
> that at all, it works out the figures on the basis that no divorce has
> occurred, and it seems that nobody knows this until they too become a
> deadbeat.
>
> I just have a feeling that there must be a way of explaining this to
> people in a way that they can understand and sympathize with.
>
> SteveT
>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:57:28 -0500, "Kenneth S." >
> wrote:
>
> >Women are not just in a minority, Steve, as noncustodial parents
> >required to pay CS, but they are in a very TINY minority. From your
> >e-mail address, it seems that you are in Britain, and I am sure the
> >situation there is the same as in the U.S.
> >
> > In the U.S. there used to be something called the "tender years"
> >doctrine, which provided a guarantee of maternal custody. The
> >philosophy was that children of tender years were better off with their
> >mothers. Officially, that doctrine has been abolished. However, in
> >reality, it continues unchanged. Judges are supposed to decide who is
> >the better parent, but they almost invariably conclude that it is the
> >mother. Fathers, of course, know this, so they generally don't get
> >involved in custody fights. (Custody battles are fights in the same
> >sense that bullfights are fights -- there's never any doubt about which
> >side will win.)
> >
> > Keeping taxes down by preventing mothers from going on welfare is, as
> >you suggest, one of the overt reasons for government forcing fathers to
> >pay CS. However, when you see what happens, and what is said about the
> >subject, you can understand that a more important element is offering
> >women the widest range of options, including the option to expel their
> >husbands from the family. That is seen most clearly when anyone points
> >out that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family, and asks
> >why the prime objective of government policy isn't to protect two-parent
> >families, instead of providing incentives for their breakup. Then the
> >defenders of the status quo are flushed out into the open. They say
> >things that boil down to insisting that women must not be denied the
> >option to expel the children's father from the family.
> >
> > As to why the system continues as it does, I think the factor you
> >mention -- ignorance about how it works -- is a major reason. Before I
> >got caught up in it, I had no idea about what went on. I had no
> >sympathy for the "deadbeat dads" who are periodically rounded up by the
> >police in the area where I live -- in full view of the invited TV
> >cameramen, of course. I didn't know that the vast majority of fathers
> >who don't pay CS, CAN'T pay, because they are impoverished themselves.
> >Nor did I know that the great majority of fatherless families are
> >created by mothers, not by the actions of fathers.
> >
> > I don't think it's correct, in the U.S. at least, to suggest that the
> >system continues because it's what most people want. A far more
> >important factor is that the money is received by mothers and paid by
> >fathers. Not only do mothers belong to the politically correct sex and
> >are thought of as victims, but there are several feminist organizations
> >that become intensively involved as soon as there is even a whiff of
> >reform in the areas of CS or child custody. By contrast, fathers have
> >no effective special interest group. As a result, politicians, judges,
> >and bureaucrats don't care what fathers think, and have no regard for
> >fathers' rights. The battle for reform is over before it even begins.
> >

[Kenneth S.]

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, SteveT says...
> >
> >Custody is probably the same everywhere, But mothers don't always win
> >and, even though they are a minority, maybe the fact that some of them
> >do pay CS makes it a more universal issue.
> >
> >I think we can agree that CS exists to keep mothers from going on
> >welfare and that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
> ==
> I can't agree--I have yet to see one credible (US) study that indicates CS keeps
> children off welfare, even though this is lauded as a prime reason for strict CS
> enforcement. In fact, most welfare families were poor prior to divorce and the
> CS award is not likely to be sufficient to keep the family off welfare post
> divorce.
> ==
> ==
The key thing to keep constantly in mind is that boatloads of research
show that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.

It's utterly foolish for public policy in the U.S. to be providing
incentives for the creation of single-parent families. Yet that is what
we are doing, because of: (1) the glass ceiling on paternal custody; (2)
the fact that most family breakups are initiated by wives, not husbands;
and (3) the post-conception reproductive rights that are given to women,
but denied to men.

[Kenneth S.]

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, SteveT says...
> >
> >Custody is probably the same everywhere, But mothers don't always win
> >and, even though they are a minority, maybe the fact that some of them
> >do pay CS makes it a more universal issue.
> >
> >I think we can agree that CS exists to keep mothers from going on
> >welfare and that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.
> ==
> I can't agree--I have yet to see one credible (US) study that indicates CS keeps
> children off welfare, even though this is lauded as a prime reason for strict CS
> enforcement. In fact, most welfare families were poor prior to divorce and the
> CS award is not likely to be sufficient to keep the family off welfare post
> divorce.
> ==
> ==
The key thing to keep constantly in mind is that boatloads of research
show that the best anti-poverty program is a two-parent family.

It's utterly foolish for public policy in the U.S. to be providing
incentives for the creation of single-parent families. Yet that is what
we are doing, because of: (1) the glass ceiling on paternal custody; (2)
the fact that most family breakups are initiated by wives, not husbands;
and (3) the post-conception reproductive rights that are given to women,
but denied to men.