--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have
equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all
choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother
chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more
options and less responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should
come
an equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility
and
options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that
a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years
and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did
not give birth to them.


Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice the
mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate
and
unilateral decision is the mothers only.

So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad,
Phil.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for.

Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years, he
can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held
responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income.

Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier
children, even though they did not bear those children themselves?

That depends on how the contract is written.


The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to women
and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at
all,
is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?

YES, it is!






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual".
And
guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course,
for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility,
that
doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She
can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even
after
birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He
has
no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE
decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You
cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment
for
12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to
continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.

Because?



My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the
choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged, pleaded
or
even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours and yours
alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

Perhaps on YOUR planet.



Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any
different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty
you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with children result in the
custody the mother chooses along with a promise of a monthly paycheck.
You
may pretend to give him equal responsibility, even sincerely believe you
are equal parents but legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want that I
am
"pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you are WRONG. You
are
far too jaded, and need to take a step back and realize that there are
still
decent, caring people in this world.

Irrelevant. The fact remains that legally both parents are NOT equal. His
claim is true!



Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't.

But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH choice
you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice was YOU.

NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together.

On YOUR planet, that may be.



So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?

With authority should come an equal responsibility. Unilateral choice
deserves unilateral responsibilty.

Now you are being unfair, and telling men that they can lie to women,
marry
them with no intention of ever being there for any children that come
along,
get them pregnant and walk away--all the nasty things you object to women
doing you WANT men to be able to do.

Women get women pregnant?
I don't believe he mentioned anything about lieing regarding any children.
Even so, legally, he has no obligation to be with her children, nor does he
have any right.

Is that truly how you want things to
be?



This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the
birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced
to
continue to support them because that is what the children were
accustomed to, not that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

It doesn't seem much different to me. I was supposed to be a father to
my
sons however when my last one was 2, I was suddenly nothing but a
stranger
that had the responsibility to pay his mother.

And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed in the
system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We need balance
and
fairness.

A concept FOREIGN to you.


I could not
legally do anything other than "visit" him 4 days a month. I had no
authority over his environment, religion, association with other
children,
vacations, dress, medical exams, etc. because the divorce and custody
"agreement" gave her "complete custody and control" while giving me a
set
and unwavering amount of money to pay her to do with as she wished. It
was
all very typical.
Where was MY decision to be a father?

That was wrong. That is what needs to be faought against and changed.



Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time
limit
as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will
ever
get any.

I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to
a
lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward
fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.

I hope you're right.

Me, too, Phil. This year 90% of my students are from never-divorced,
2-parent homes. The highest percentage I've had in years.

I've heard that fewer men are opting for divorce figuring it's less damaging
to live with a contentuous woman than to go broke with the risk of
imprisonment. FINE choice the government people give men, huh?



The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in
reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral
choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to
match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should
be
given choice equal to that responsibility.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the
legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal
responsibility toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.

There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default.
Each
parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses
to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the
other
parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. If a
parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent
should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people
responsible for their own choices!

Other than I don't think any parent should be allowed to take the
children
from the area of the other without their express permission, I agree.

The only way to get things to change is to keep fighting for change.

Yeah, like continuing to go back to "family" court until you're broke. Uhuh.
The whackjobs in "family" court are so determined to protect their industry
that they will shed their blood in doing so.