Poor Mothers crying Wa Wa

On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:51:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:40:43 -0700, "DB" wrote:

Why, child support has a very negative impact on the economics of all
males.

We don't care about your personal "economics".

Out side of your love fest group - here you just look like a lot of
one issue whiney guys with lots of excuses who won't man up for their
kids.


There's that word "whiney" again! It's been several weeks
since "whiney" and "whining" have made their appearance in the
alt.child-support newsgroup. Is some kind of natural cycle at work
here? Anyone up for wagers about when the next round of "whiney"
references occurs in this news group?

The w-word seems to be popular with feminists who are very
insistent that WOMEN are entitled to all forms of post-conception
reproductive choice (via abortion, unilateral adoption, newborn
drop-off laws, and so on), regardless of the interests of the child.
However, these same feminists insist that MEN are not entitled to the
male version of post-conception choice. The male version of choice
consists of giving men the right to say that they will not pay 18+
years worth of money to a woman who made a unilateral decision to
have, and keep, the child involved.

And then there's Retrogrouch's criticism of those who won't
"man up" for their kids. This seems to be a variation of the
principle that real men are those who do what feminists tell them to
do -- provide financial support for their women.

Maybe the one issue of interest to people in this news group
is what is misleadingly called "child support." Is it possible that
this focus is connected with the fact that this news group has the
title "alt.child-support?" Just an idea, of course, but I thought I'd
mention it.