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 |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
'Kate wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:56:58 -0500, Werebat the following was posted in blue crayon: '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. There is intelligent life out there! Good! Now... let's get down to it. :-) I'm curious -- if you knew from the get-go that there was a flaw in your statement about "you men", why did you make it? Just to stir things up? I think almost everyone here will agree that both parents should support their children financially and emotionally. The Devil is in the details. I agree with you. On that point, yes. I also think almost everyone on both sides any debate about this stuff is going to be able to agree that "the Devil is in the details". I don't beleive the OP was actually advocating that both parents should be thrown in jail. Nor was I suggesting that women should run their husbands over, or that all men are cheaters, or all women are murderers. OK 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. And here I thought I was presenting a balance. I don't know the reason why an individual parent doesn't pay. I've seen the same stats as the poster who stated that the percentage of women who don't pay is greater than the percentage of men and we don't make a big deal about saying "deadbeat moms". 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. Good, all of it. Although, again, "the Devil is in the details" :^) 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. I'm sorry, I just don't follow. How does the advantage go to men in the family court system? Or are you just saying that "overall", men have the advantage (as in "overall", the great white shark is at the top of the food chain since 3/4 of the Earth is covered in water)? 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." Male judges and their misplaced chivalry have, I think, a lot to do with the family court situation, but they are not the only factor. And I seem to remember hearing a vocal feminist or two in college speaking out against men abusing their power advantages. I think I know what you are trying to say, but I have to disagree with it inasmuch as it is an attitude that can breed a "give it up, way it is" mentality. OTOH, I also realize that blaming women for abusing power advantages can lead to hating women rather than correcting the imbalance of power that resulted in their being able to abuse in the first place (which is also undesireable). 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. If that is so, then they are more likely to not pay the child support ordered. Those two pieces of the puzzle fit well. I've considered that point before, and come to the same conclusion. It does make sense. If the majority of women who lose custody are, to use the vernacular, "whack-jobs", then it would only follow that a greater percentage of women who are supposed to pay CS, don't. That's exactly why women who do want to be fair and share custody are condemned as nuts, drunks, drug abusers, and etc. 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. Rather like a man who loses a business promotion to a woman being thought of as "weak" or a "loser". You certainly sound like you think all of this is wrong. 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? Perhaps not eloquently put but yes, I have qualitative interviews and can cite some examples of the difference in how widowed men are treated v. widowed women. If you say. Perhaps they are scientifically valid. What you're saying does make a sort of sense. I know people at work who think I am a "fantastic father" and they have literally seen me with my son only one or two times. How could they possibly know? And when I am out alone with him (just the two of us) I seem to get a lot of admiring looks. It could be that a father only has to be "average" to be considered a "great parent", "for a man". Sort of like a Black person in years gone by being thought of as a "prodigy", "for a ******", just for being able to read. I think that's what you're talking about here. They are offered far more help than single women. How? The silence. Again, how? 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). I was explaining that we all have our issues. I'm not "upset" by being a single mother. I never said you were. You're upset that people assume you are freeloading just because you're a single mother. I am certainly not thrilled with the situation but stuff happens and we're making the best of it. If I am doing anything at all, it is trying to explain that there are other sides to this very complex issue of being a single parent and the difficulties that single parents face - both mothers and fathers. I am seeking understanding. I'm willing to give what I get. I think your case -- being a widow -- makes you something unexpected in the alt.child.support newsgroup. No doubt there are myriad problems associated with this, but they aren't what most of us here are going to be thinking of when we enter a discussion. We're thinking of what we've been burned by personally -- a tyrannical and biased system of family courts, government agencies, and assorted "legal pickpockets" all lined up for the next scam that will strip us of a little more money, dignity, and time with our kids. But where do you think the prejudice comes from? I think that it's gender bias just the same as women who have multiple sex partners being perceived as sluts while men are perceived as studs. So you admit that the family courts are gender biased. I thought as much. The old "slut/stud" thing, eh? That's a funny little one. My personal theory is that at least some of it comes from women who have normal/low/reserved sexual drives launching bad publicity at women who are more openly sexual (for making them look bad). At least in the high schools I have worked at, the most vocal and virulently hateful of the "sluts" are other girls and female teachers. Of course men have their curious reasons too (they don't want a partner who will bear children with another man), publicly scorning the "sluts" while also wanting to sleep with them. It's a weird thing. 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? How does any of us know that for sure? Life does not come with a guarantee. I may never marry again but I know that there is a chance that my children may be effected by divorce and custody laws whether or not he or she initiates divorce, caused the divorce, or files first (to cover bases.) Even a woman who is abusing the family court system would be interested in reforming it if she had a son and was sufficiently far-sighted. I don't think many people are, though. For my part, I think it's too late for me to see any reforms that will help me personally -- but I have one son already, and another on the way, and this is why I have an interest in reform. Twenty years is enough time to make a better situation for them. 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 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. That's admirable. On the other hand, "Just say no" only goes so far in the real world. 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. I may have written that wrong. What I meant to say was that in a good agreement *both* sides will not be happy. It's pretty standard that if one side does all the giving, then the other will be happy but if both sides give enough, then no one will be happy. That's a difficult concept for me to convey so if I still haven't... oh well. I did try. I see what you are saying. To be honest, my own situation with my ex is one where neither one of us is totally happy, and I think it is pretty "fair" overall (or it will be once I finish paying off this student loan debt of hers). However, what bothers me is that the whole deal was set up contingent on HER approval, and we all know that if she decides to go crazy-go-nuts at any point in the future and demand full custody (or, if she is smart, just 90% of the standard CS award while I have our son 50% of the time), she'll win. That I don't like. It's a "push comes to shove" thing, where we both know what would happen if we decided to get nasty, and that strongly affects both our social bargaining and my own feeling of security and mental health. The nasty things she could do to me are almost all legal, while the only ones left to me are purely illegal. Not that either of us wants to go there, but hopefully you can see my point. - Ron ^*^ |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Kent wrote: Why the FK is this crossposted to alt.support.childfree? We don't have a dog in this fight, and never will. Perhaps because someone is trolling. Enjoy! :^) Seriously -- who ever said you needed to actually father a child in order to be forced to pay child support? - Ron ^*^ |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
"'Kate" wrote in message ... All this because I agreed that being called a deadbeat dad was a problem and that the media created the problem by perpetuating the stereotype. Evidently, he feels that I'm responsible for the term. That wasn't rational. If I had received a rational argument in response (more than the one time), it might have been an interesting thread. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. It degenerated at a rapid pace. 'Kate He is just looking for a reason to **** and moan. Bleh. Fooey on him. Let's get back to better things ...... V |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
"'Kate" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:48:22 GMT, "V" the following was posted in blue crayon: I have a new name..."V the feminist lawyer want to be" BAH. I can not wait to tell my wittle fwends at the prescwool....I met a meanie on usenet who dislike feminists lawyer wanna bes...... lol V Be careful or he'll taunt you. Whoooo. Your mother was a hamster,...and your father smelled of elderberries! (sigh,...yeah, I know,...stolen) (sorry) |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
"'Kate" wrote in message ... .... For some reason, seeing a man father his children is.... well, hot. g THUD! BTW,...thanks for an interesting sub-thread. |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:12:52 GMT, 'Kate wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:42:41 GMT, "V" the following was posted in blue crayon: "Rambler" wrote in message ... snip 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 snip Kate lost her husband to death. We do not think men are bad people. Actually we love men who have accountability. Your childhood and being picked on has nothing to do with this group. Why are you used to being picked on? You should seek therapy for being so darn angry! V All this because I agreed that being called a deadbeat dad was a problem and that the media created the problem by perpetuating the stereotype. Evidently, he feels that I'm responsible for the term. That wasn't rational. If I had received a rational argument in response (more than the one time), it might have been an interesting thread. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. It degenerated at a rapid pace. 'Kate LOL... You and Rambler both share at least one little character flaw... You've *both* gotta have the last word... even if it's elsewhere. rj |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
In
ups.com posted on 30 Mar 2005 23:02:07 -0800, "rj" , wrote: '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. 'Kate sigh... And what an angry woman. I was finding this exchange to be both intelligent (a rarity on usenet) and stimulating. Then somewhere along the way it degenerated into finger-pointing and name-calling. A pity... Follow alt.support.childfree for a few months, and you will see lots of this. Regards, "Nilkids" [American in Australia posting from alt.support.childfree, contactable on said group.] rj |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
"'Kate" wrote in message ... On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:37:07 +0530, rj the following was posted in blue crayon: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:12:52 GMT, 'Kate wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:42:41 GMT, "V" the following was posted in blue crayon: "Rambler" wrote in message ... snip 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 snip Kate lost her husband to death. We do not think men are bad people. Actually we love men who have accountability. Your childhood and being picked on has nothing to do with this group. Why are you used to being picked on? You should seek therapy for being so darn angry! V All this because I agreed that being called a deadbeat dad was a problem and that the media created the problem by perpetuating the stereotype. Evidently, he feels that I'm responsible for the term. That wasn't rational. If I had received a rational argument in response (more than the one time), it might have been an interesting thread. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. It degenerated at a rapid pace. 'Kate LOL... You and Rambler both share at least one little character flaw... You've *both* gotta have the last word... even if it's elsewhere. rj LOL.. only 'cause gestures don't come across on usenet. That's alright... Kate, you have, officially... _____________________________..########___________ _##________##_________ ____________________________###########__________. .##_______##________## ___________________________####_____####__________ _#______.#_______####_ ________________________.########_____##########__ ___#___.#____####______ ________________________.########______..######### _____#_.#__####_________ ____________________..###############_________#### #####____#_____________ ________________########################______#### ###__#_____####..______ ______________############################________ ___#___#_______####..__ ___________##################################_____ ___.#____#________.##__ _________######66##########66##########66######___ ___#______#___________ ________######66##########66##########66########__ ___.#_______##.________ _______######66##########66##########66##########_ ___##_______.##._______ ______######66##########66##########66############ ___.#._________________ _____.######66##########66##########66############ #._____________________ _____######66666666####66666666####66666666####### ####____________________ _____######666666666###666666666###666666666####|# #####____________________ _____####|##66666666####66666666####66666666###### #####____________________ _____########66666#######66666#######66666######## ###____________________ _____.############################################ #.____________________ _____..########################################### #_____________________ ______.,########################################## ______________________ _______..########################################_ ______________________ ________..######################################.. _______________________ ___________.##################################.___ ______________________ _____________.##############################._____ ______________________ ________________#########################.._______ ______________________ DROPPED DA BOMB!! -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
"Cloaked" wrote in message ... I am not convinced that the admission eliminates credibility; however, it does imply a defininte bias - and that comments and actions must be closely examined for hidden agendas. Just from casual observation, there was a time when femminism stood for equality. Now, it appears that femminists want superiority. How ironic that they would subscribe to a behaviour in themselves that they profess to detest in men! Hmmm.... perhaps they are closer to equality that they thought! Too bad they could not have used this opporetunity to raise us all up a notch! But alas, they are achieving equality by reverting to the lowest common denominator. sigh Your last sentence sounds a bit sexist to me but perhaps I am being overly sensitive. Modern feminism is only interested in special rights for women without responsibility while claiming these special rights are somehow equitable. For instance, they demanded the right to vote but strenuously avoid the responsibility to defend it with liability for selective service or when a pregnancy occurs, by law the father has no choices while the mother has at least four, which to feminists represents equality. Personally, I do not choose to believe one who supports a system of belief that has been proven to be less than honest about their goals. Phil #3 On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:19:57 GMT, "Phil #3" wrote: "V" wrote in message ... "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 Speaking only for myself, admission of feminism completely eliminates credibility. Phil #3 |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
In Message-ID:GY43e.866196$8l.217578@pd7tw1no posted on
Fri, 01 Apr 2005 05:27:02 GMT, "xkatx" , wrote: ....a 304 line post where could have only written 7 lines of text using ASCII or ANSI text! And on alt.support.childfree I get accused of "wasting bandwidth" :-) [Rest snipped, see original] Regards, "Nilkids" |
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 |