If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Why the FK is this crossposted to alt.support.childfree? We don't have a dog
in this fight, and never will. "Cloaked" wrote in message ... SNIP Take a look at child access interference. Were that prosecuted to the same extent that child maintenance is prosecuted, heck we'd have kids growing up without parents, because both Mom and Dad would be in jail. Hmm... man cheats on woman. Woman runs him down in the parking lot of the hotel where he was having sex with his mistress. Woman pleads "but you can't put me in jail, the children will be without a parent." I am sure that arguement has been made somewhere at sometime! Interesting that you immediately pull a stereotype in your example - a very negative stereotype about men! It never occurred to you that lots of women cheat on their husbands and then divorce them AND take them to the cleaners??? Want to see if your example is nuts?? Reverse the genders and you will immediately see how crazy the argument is! So... let me ask you... are you responding the way that you are because you're a man in that situation or because you think it's fair for everyone to be put in jail for not supporting children? Do you really think that this is "either/or" or is there another option wherein people actually support their own children and don't run out on payments *OR* children? So you are accusing him of being a cheater? Rather presumptuous, wouldn't you say? Sounds like something a femminist lawyer would come out with. I'll tell you what I think, I think that when the custodial parent - usually the woman - interferes with court ordered access of the non-custodial partent - usually the man - that the offender should spend an automatic 7 nights in the crow-bar hotel. No exceptions. No excuses. No trial. No appeal. Automatic done deal. 2nd offense?? 14 nights. 3rd offense??? 30 days. 4th Offense??? loss of custody. Before you cry fowl and say it is so unfair, consider the "punsihment" that a man may receive for "non-payment": Cancellation of Passport Loss of Drivers License Imprisonment Criminal Contempt Charges Fines Garnishment of wages Revokation of Business License Revokation of Professional Status Loss of right to vote The list goes on... Sorry, from where I sit women do not undergo these indignities. And when a woman choses to interfere with access, it is done so with virtual impunity. Why the onesided party???? Why should not women enjoy the same persecution and prosecution as men?? Don't like it? How about telling your local politician to lighten up of the "dead beat dad" crap - because that is all it is - crap. It is spewed from the mouths of politicians because it sounds good to women and the sole purpose is to garner part of the vote - it has nothing to do with facts, reason, or justice. The best option is to balance not just the laws, but the implementation of those laws. Justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done! To balance, either women must suffer as men do, or men's lot must be lightened to the same level that women are privy to. Which would you prefer?? |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
'Kate wrote:
I don't understand how you don't understand but maybe the person to whom I'm responding will get it. He seemed intelligent. Let me take a stab at explaining this to you. The above case is the danger in generalizing one incident to all people. Not all women are murderers. Not all men cheat. That was my point. I guess you blinked. Well, actually Kate, I didn't get it either, which is why I didn't respond to your post. Your post to me was all over the place ... somewhat confusing actually, so I guess I am not intelligent. One thing I will respond to in your previous post is your point about why *all* men seem to only speak about personal experiences. The reason why I added the word personal to the experiences is to keep it tame. from my conversations with married and divorced friends, from my reading and basic research, the same point comes up again and again and again. But I can only speak from what I *personally* know. BTW, the above case was fact. It did happen. The case above was fact. She killed *and* then plead for mercy because her children were made orphans. Ironic, huh? Point? It never occurred to you that lots of women cheat on their husbands and then divorce them AND take them to the cleaners??? Don't make me roll my eyes at you. Here's where the whole thing cheapens, IMO. Bringing eye rolling is a, what, passive aggressive putdown. It also conjurs up the image of the poor female, at least to me. Men have also been known to throw away the stay-at-home wife for a more interesting, younger, career woman. See? There *are* two sides. I'm looking at them. You aren't. What is going on is that you're so use to fighting women that you can't see your way around the issue. I'm a woman; therefore, I'm taking a side; therefore, I'm wrong. Am I getting your point? If so, I think I will roll my eyes at you. I didn't see Cloaked say that you were wrong. I saw him say that your position was wrong. There is a difference. He might have been gregarious in his choice of words, but he was, I think, focusing on the position. In fact, his comment about how you or people should go to their politicians and tell them to stop mouthing the "Beat Dad Dead" homily I think underscored that point. Btw, rolling your eyes cheapens that argument, in my opinion. Rambler |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
'Kate wrote:
I believe that the media has a hard time beating women up in the same way that they feel free to beat men up but I don't think that adding women on to the deadbeat parent list is the appropriate response. I think that the appropriate response is that parents should support their children and then these lists would be unnecessary. But.. this isn't a perfect world, is it? I also know that in alt.support.single-parents, the term "deadbeat dad" is discouraged. It is in the monthly FAQ IIRC. If you read that I was saying that everybody should be thrown in jail, or that everybody should be a "deadbeat" then you read incorrectly. Neither do I think it is possible to hop skip and jump from here to the "appropriate response [being] that parents should support their children and then these lists would be unecessary." These lists exist for people who *do* support their children, so saying support your children and we'll get rid of the list defies logic. Or reason. My initial point, a point you indicate that you have read the studies on and agreed with, is that the vast majority of people on these lists do not deserve to be on them. Because being male is the be all end all as far as being top of the food chain. That depends entirely on which "food chain" you are talking about. To use a metaphor, a great white shark is not at the top of the food chain in the middle of the Gobi desert. He's more of a sitting duck. Environment plays a very significant factor. Only if one lives in an environment that is totally unaffected by every other environment... a glass fishbowl, perhaps. Otherwise, we see and learn that the advantage tends to go to the men. Then I guess that the family court system and the divorce system is a glass fishbowl. In family court, men are most certainly not at "the top of the food chain". To suggest otherwise is... well... nonsensical because it flies in the face of so much data indicating the opposite. Men were the ones who put other men in this position (male judges). To blame women for taking advantage of it is like blaming men for taking advantage of being at the top of the food chain. It exists. There are reasons why it exists as it does. They are not fair reasons.. not for either "side." Really? You mean women didn't get the vote in the 20's after all, or that all judges are over 105 years old? So now it is the male judges who are the problem, not the court system, not the social welfare officers, not the "tender years doctrine" which, if I recall correctly, was supposed to have gone out in the 80's with a series of conventions, and then re-writes of the guardianship and custody laws in the 90's, but yet are still applied. If you could show me an outlash from the female gender *against* this thing, then I'd agree with you. But I don't see that, even though (at least in here) many women do agree with equal access/custody types of things. If that is so, then they are more likely to not pay the child support ordered. Those two pieces of the puzzle fit well. That's exactly why women who do want to be fair and share custody are condemned as nuts, drunks, drug abusers, and etc. Fine. Then make the same argument the other way around. Those men who aren't paying who are drug users, drunks and whatnot shouldn't be placed on the "rolls" because of that? Doesn't fit. What backs up the statement that these women are *insert whatever issue* is that men have had to fight awfully hard to gain custody of their children. They have been forced to prove their ex's to be *insert whatever issue* or lose their children. They have had to do so using money to hire a private investigator or by getting medical records. Also, women are more likely to seek help for "emotional problems." Therefore, more women would be judged to be *insert whatever issue* in a court of law than men. Men have to prove they are better. Women have automatically won. Don't follow this one at all. Many of us had money issues at the time. Money issues are one of the top three reasons why couples divorce. I was a recently married young adult at the time and expecting my oldest child. Hmm ... I was always told that the money, sex, kids argument line was false. Those were symptoms, not prolems. You work to explain the rise in divorce but the explanation has little to do with the aforementioned "tender years" doctrine. No.. that has to do with custody. The topic was child support and "deadbeat dads". One cannot be a deadbeat dad without a court order to pay. The number one reason for a custody dispute is divorce. False. One is very easily labeled a "Beat Dead Dad." Courts do not bestow that label. I would love to see the court order that says "And so my Order is that Mr. So and So be a Dead Beat Dad." I have no Order against me for anything, yet I am referred to repeatedly as a Dead Beat Dad by the mother, by the ex-mother-in-law and my kids even bring it up from time to time (or they used to). I'll leave the throw away line at the end of your paragraph alone, except to say, "relevance?" I know. But given a choice, I would rather work on keeping couples together than on the issue of how to divide assets and share custody. laudable, but I don't think it can be done it "the Dark Side" becomes fully understood. Carrot stick rationale. Rambler |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
"Cloaked" wrote in Before you cry fowl and say it is so unfair, consider the "punsihment" that a man may receive for "non-payment": Cancellation of Passport Loss of Drivers License Imprisonment Criminal Contempt Charges Fines Garnishment of wages Revokation of Business License Revokation of Professional Status Loss of right to vote The list goes on... Yes isn't it interesting that a poor man gets the full weight of the law thrown at him for something he has no control and yet the basic criminal receives very little in the way of enforcement. Hold up a gas station and you get a few months in jail, but you don't get 18 years of harrasement from CSE and other agencies! This is just a good old fashioned witch hunt!!!!!!! |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
"Cloaked" wrote in message ... SNIP So you are accusing him of being a cheater? Rather presumptuous, wouldn't you say? Sounds like something a femminist lawyer would come out with. snip Hey, hey.....watch it....everyone move out of here.......there is nothing to see here....psst....hey you...yeah..you mister...with the loin cloth and knuckles dragging as you gait slowly....yeah...you... Ahem...you gotta problem with feminist lawyers? V, who is a feminist and working on being a lawyer |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
"Rambler" wrote in message ... snip Btw, rolling your eyes cheapens that argument, in my opinion. Rambler Do you not roll your eyes? In person? I do. Sometimes I kick out the 'whatever!' It is a coping mechanism used in those moments when the other person just simply won't or can't 'get it'! No harm meant, I am sure. V |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
V wrote:
"Cloaked" wrote in message ... SNIP So you are accusing him of being a cheater? Rather presumptuous, wouldn't you say? Sounds like something a femminist lawyer would come out with. snip Hey, hey.....watch it....everyone move out of here.......there is nothing to see here....psst....hey you...yeah..you mister...with the loin cloth and knuckles dragging as you gait slowly....yeah...you... Ahem...you gotta problem with feminist lawyers? V, who is a feminist and working on being a lawyer And there I thought you were practicing a stand-up routine. Rambler |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
'Kate wrote:
And for a second, I thought you were, perhaps, willing to look at other sides of the issue. My bad. I see that this is just another "I'm right and you're a woman" posts. I see. Good response. It would appear that you are unwilling to look at other sides of this issue. Or any sides of this issue. My bad. Has nothing to do with you being a woman or not. That is irrelevant, except it seems to you. I can see where the soc.boys guys would have fun with this, but that's not my purview. Thanks for playing. Rambler |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
'Kate wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:35:32 +0800, Rambler the following was posted in blue crayon: Thanks for playing. Rambler LOL... sure. wink Go ahead, you can have the last word. I know that is important to you. Especially seeing as most of the other things you said were unintelligible. It's because I'm a man, isn't it, one of those horrible wretches who put you in your current positon. I can take it .., I'm used to getting picked on. Rambler (oh, just noticed your attribution line about "blue crayons." A great way to subtly tell the person you're responding to that their comments are childish. Works a lot better if you can get the grammar right, so you might wish to change it from "the following was posted in blue crayon" to "posted the following in blue crayon." besides, 'was posted' is passive voice, which while it fits your style, is typically frowned upon. But then, I shouldn't be commenting on grammar and spelling). |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
'Kate wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:18:34 +0800, Rambler the following was posted in blue crayon: Go ahead, you can have the last word. I know that is important to you. What an angry man. Come on, you've got to have a better last word than that, don't you? I mean this one is so ... so ... transparent. Not being able to answer a single thing, you delved quickly into name calling. I mean, I figured as the self made representative of a superior class, you could at least come up with something witty, something stinging, something provocative or even downright intelligent, as opposed to a trite fallback. Perhaps a huddle with V the feminist lawyer want-to-be is in order. You can take the family therapist student role, and she can take the law student role. (Oh, btw, if you truly are studying to be a family therapist, I would think again ... way to many issues and labels for you to be of help to somebody ... I mean, wouldn't it be the angry men that you were trying to save to save marriage ... or would those be a convenient excuse in your practive ...). Come on, one more for the Gipper .... Rambler |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
State warns county about deadbeat parent ads/10-2 | Dave Briggman | Child Support | 0 | October 2nd 04 01:19 AM |
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads | Don | Child Support | 8 | August 12th 04 07:17 AM |
Deadbeat Fathers are a growing problem throughout the region | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 5 | November 12th 03 02:33 AM |
Deadbeat Parent Finder Service | infopro | Child Support | 21 | October 6th 03 04:38 PM |
Boksa, birth insults and schizophrenia (also: Gastaldo 'you ignorant asshole' --Allen D. Radant, MD) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | July 14th 03 11:01 PM |