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 |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
"T" wrote in message k.net... "xkatx" wrote in because there's also lots of parents who choose not to help with their children and have more than enough means to survive well, while helping out financially with their children. Please show me anyone in America who can afford CS rates? Please show me anywhere that states this applies to America only. Isn't it odd that every American screams at the top of their lungs when the gas prizes go up by just a few cents and claim they can't afford trips or vactions anymore. Imagine if their gas was hiked to $25/gallon and told they had to use this gas or go to jail? Isn't it odd that, since you're making such a huge assumption and clumping a huge amount of people into a single group, Americans will scream at the top of their lungs over almost everything and anything. Food, clothing, love and attention are a necessity for children. Gas and cars are a luxury. Believe it or not. A person CAN live without their precious cars, but can anyone survive long without the necessities of life? That's what it feels like for us that are working and can't afford these CS rates!!!!!! Good for you for having a job. Aren't you special? There's custodial parents who also work and barely make ends meet while trying to provide all the can for their children. What's your point? |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
In article , teachrmama says...
"Gini" wrote in message ... In article , 'Kate says... .............. If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue to malign NCF's. 'Kate === What's an NCF? (Bob, should I know this?) === Non Custodial Father? (That's my guess) === Ahh... that works. See, I should have known that. It's this age thing, I guess. === |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
In article IRn2e.844811$6l.74125@pd7tw2no, xkatx says...
"T" wrote in message nk.net... "xkatx" wrote in because there's also lots of parents who choose not to help with their children and have more than enough means to survive well, while helping out financially with their children. Please show me anyone in America who can afford CS rates? Please show me anywhere that states this applies to America only. Isn't it odd that every American screams at the top of their lungs when the gas prizes go up by just a few cents and claim they can't afford trips or vactions anymore. Imagine if their gas was hiked to $25/gallon and told they had to use this gas or go to jail? Isn't it odd that, since you're making such a huge assumption and clumping a huge amount of people into a single group, Americans will scream at the top of their lungs over almost everything and anything. Food, clothing, love and attention are a necessity for children. Gas and cars are a luxury. Believe it or not. A person CAN live without their precious cars, but can anyone survive long without the necessities of life? That's what it feels like for us that are working and can't afford these CS rates!!!!!! Good for you for having a job. Aren't you special? There's custodial parents who also work and barely make ends meet while trying to provide all the can for their children. What's your point? === Maybe the custodial parent should not have had a child they could not afford? === |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
"Gini" wrote in message ... In article , 'Kate says... .............. If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue to malign NCF's. 'Kate === What's an NCF? (Bob, should I know this?) === Necessary Cash Forwarder? Negative Cash Flowee? Natural Capital Furnisher? No Child Father? Nookie Costs Forever? Nasty Court Fiat? No Chance Farce? Normal Childless Fate? Pick one - or go with Teachrmama's suggestion which is probably what was really meant. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
'Kate wrote:
Given that the greatest number of non-payers (by a wide margin) are fathers, why go after the mother? This is a serious comment, yes? The reason why the greatest numbers of non-payers, on a strictly numerical basis, are fathers *is because* the greatest number of *all* payers, by a whopping margin are men. Take one percent of a billion and you are going to come up with a larger number than 50% of a thousand. Now, switch those figures around, and all of a sudden, where custody situations and child maintenance equal, you'd have, statistically speaking, a population of 500 million non-payers as opposed to the 100,000 that you have now. The *reason* for this is that it has been my personal experience that women are treated far more gently then men are in this process. 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. But aside from that, mothers are listed in the non-payers listings when they are on websites and in the papers in many areas. If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue to malign NCF's. Been there, doing that. The term is perhaps widespread by the media, but it is consistently placed forward by advocate groups to keep the terms in front of people. Take the term 'lesbianism.' Absolutely great pr work on the group that advocated that. On the one hand, you've got 'gays' which are maligned because they are male homosexuals. On the other you've got 'lesbians,' who in reality are merely female gays, but the perception is much different, because their pr machine was better. Take the Dead Beat Dad 'concept.' Again, a better pr machine. And it's not the media. The system is continually reinforced through domestic violence issues, child support issues. Oh, and if I recall correctly, aren't the majority of voters women? it is a gender thing only because a small part of one gender has made it a gender thing. One can either evolve back to the centre which takes time and pain, or revolt back to the centre. That's why you get people making it into a *huge* gender thing, to push it back to the centre. The problem with that is that a 'revolution' has an amazing tendancy of pushing too far in the opposite direction. Just my two kopeks worth. Rambler |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Where do I sign on in this revolution, general?
"Rambler" wrote in message ... | | The problem with that is that a 'revolution' has an amazing tendancy of | pushing too far in the opposite direction. | | Just my two kopeks worth. | | Rambler | |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message k.net... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , 'Kate says... .............. If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue to malign NCF's. 'Kate === What's an NCF? (Bob, should I know this?) === Necessary Cash Forwarder? Negative Cash Flowee? Natural Capital Furnisher? No Child Father? Nookie Costs Forever? Nasty Court Fiat? No Chance Farce? Normal Childless Fate? Pick one - or go with Teachrmama's suggestion which is probably what was really meant. Oh, but I like yours much better, Bob! chuckle |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
In article t, Bob Whiteside
says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , 'Kate says... .............. If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue to malign NCF's. 'Kate === What's an NCF? (Bob, should I know this?) === Necessary Cash Forwarder? Negative Cash Flowee? Natural Capital Furnisher? No Child Father? Nookie Costs Forever? Nasty Court Fiat? No Chance Farce? Normal Childless Fate? Pick one - or go with Teachrmama's suggestion which is probably what was really meant. === Geeze, now I'm really confused. (But, I bet it starts with 'no chance.' It just sounds right.) === |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
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?? |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
'Kate wrote: Why is it that whenever you talk to men about these emotional things, they use personal experience? It's as if the rest of the world does not exist. Boggle I think *people* tend to go right to personal experience when discussing emotional things. I mean it's not like women, by comparision, are more likely to head right for the objective data when discussing emotional issues. Come on. 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'm not sure what the relevance of this little vignette 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? I think almost everyone here will agree that both parents should support their children financially and emotionally. The Devil is in the details. I don't beleive the OP was actually advocating that both parents should be thrown in jail. But you already know that, I think. The logic presented is pretty basic stuff, and the only way I can see someone misreading it is if they are being deliberately obfuscatory in an effort to confound other readers. 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. 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. Take the women who leave their children or are not "given" custody of their children.... aren't they treated more harshly by society? They are automatically seen as bad mothers or crazy or drunks or drug abusers. We immediatly think, "What's wrong with her?" because it is not the norm. You're right. Non-Custodial Moms are generally assumed to have done something "wrong" in order to have "lost" custody. But what does that say about the reality of the family court system? Is there statistically anything behind it? What kind of women lose custody cases? If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that there were would be a significantly higher percentage who were "bad mothers", "crazy", "drunks", and "drug abusers" than the equivalent for men who lost custody disputes. Of course I *could* be wrong, but I don't think so. Take the men who have custody or are widowed. They are treated like idiots who don't know how to parent their own children. Eh? I have my son half of the time and I don't recall ever being treated like an idiot who didn't know how to parent. Are you citing a study here, or just going on personal experience? They are offered far more help than single women. How? Single women are called welfare moms and treated like "you made your bed. I don't declare "I'm a widow" immediately. . . you would be surprised at how many are ready to tell me how if I had been a good wife and mother, I wouldn't be in this situation.... even among fellow family therapist students the assumption is that I'm divorced or never married. And you know... what's it matter? The stiuation is the same. So you are upset that just because you are a single mother, people assume you are freeloading off the system and feel animosity towards you because of that. I guess I can see that. I certainly wouldn't like that attitude directed at me either, if it weren't true of me (and probably even if it were). But where do you think the prejudice comes from? Ah, we all have our pet peeves don't we? Sure do. And to be fair, is it really reasonable to expect anyone to have as much of a conniption about a societal prejudice that hasn't and isn't ever going to affect *them*, personally? it is a gender thing only because a small part of one gender has made it a gender thing. I can go either way as far as fairness but here's another side: It is a gender thing because judges, who were by and large male, had something called the tender years doctrine. The rise in the divorce rate is, in part, because of economic stress in the marriage. Money. Lack thereof. This trend became more pronounced in the late 1970's with the formation of OPEC and the drastic, almost overnight increase in crude oil prices. The rise in oil prices increased the price of commodities immediately - milk, bread, and other perishable goods. This, in turn, caused more and more mothers to need to work to help provide for the family. The middle class nearly perished. I believe that men were caught short trying to adjust to a family structure that was anything but the ideal Ozzie and Harriet home life. They grew angry and resentful.... probably for a good reason. Their fathers didn't exactly model the behaviors that they'd have to adopt to compensate for working mothers. Well now I've never heard the connection between oil and divorce before. Where'd you hear that one? You work to explain the rise in divorce but the explanation has little to do with the aforementioned "tender years" doctrine. I also think that wives would sacrifice their lives for their children before they would sacrifice their lives for their husbands. I believe that husbands would save their wives before their children. I don't know why that is but maybe it works survival-wise. Perhaps this, alone, accounts for the tender years doctrine. What's that famous painting of the mother whose baby was stolen and, when the judge said that they'd simply cut the baby in half, chose to give the child up to spare its life? Similar... but different. It's a story of the wisdom of King Solomon. And for the record, I'm sure I'd save my child before my spouse -- even my current one. That just feels natural as a parent. Maybe I'm just a freak, who knows? :^/ Seems like we're both just talking "belief" here though. One can either evolve back to the centre which takes time and pain, or revolt back to the centre. That's why you get people making it into a *huge* gender thing, to push it back to the centre. The problem with that is that a 'revolution' has an amazing tendancy of pushing too far in the opposite direction. Just my two kopeks worth. It's an interesting two kopecks, comrade. :-) I agree that the immediate reaction is often revolutionary and, over time, the pendulum swings until a liveable agreement is reached. Well we're certainly not there at the moment. I don't agree that anyone is going to be happy about the result. If they were, we wouldn't need divorce and custody law. No matter the system, some people are going to be unhappy about the results. But there's a difference between "unhappy" and "abused". Black slaves in the deep Southern USA were undoubtedly "unhappy" about their situation, and I don't think an explanation of "Well, no matter how we work things out, SOMEONE will be unhappy..." could ever have smoothed over their grievances. I'll tell you, as a victim of this system, that kind of palliative talk only infuriates me. - Ron ^*^ |
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 03:33 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 |