Re: Fury over gender pay gap.More lazy bast cowdroppings!
Hatefeminism
>
> In article <40F8ABA7...@feminism.now>, ki...@feminism.now says...
> > MCP wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html
> > >
> > > WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than men in
> > > full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
> > > The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities Commission
> > > reported.
> > >
> > > In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.
> > >
> > > The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours for top
> > > jobs.
> > >
> > > And they said it forced women who spend time with their children to take
> > > lesser-paid positions.
> > >
> > > Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason part-time work
> > > should be lower paid."
> > >
> > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
> >
> > It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for their
> > own fucking choices.
> >
> Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the
I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.
> kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.
Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
fathers. The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
monies from men to support the child and mother. Children also do
better raised by solo fathers.
It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
money to extort from the man than from the woman.
Beverly
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:02:20 +1200, Hatefeminism <ki...@feminism.now>
wrote:
>knoxy wrote:
>>
>> In article <40F8ABA7...@feminism.now>, ki...@feminism.now says...
>> > MCP wrote:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html
>> > >
>> > > WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than men in
>> > > full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
>> > > The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities Commission
>> > > reported.
I don't think we can take this as it stands because not enough
information was given. First, I'd like to know the pay difference
between same-gendered part-timers and full-timers. It MAY be equally
fair to say that MEN who work part-time are paid significantly less
per hour than men who work full-time. What pay are they basing this
on... base pay or full pay? People who work full-time, at least here
in the USA, are generally entitled to benefits that the part-timers
are not. Hence, if both part-time and full-time pays $10 per hour,
the full-timer may have a compensation package that is equivalent to
$14 per hour... the $4.00 per hour being in the form of medical
benefits, etc... I know, at my company, full-timer's have benefits
that part-timer's do not get that, when taxes are taken into account,
increase the hourly rate by approximately $3.85. This article is
likely to be slanted to say what it wants you to hear.
That said, I do believe there is a "glass ceiling." That is not what
the aricle is about, however.
Rebecca Floyd
generally make more money per year than a female. In a family where both
parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
support the family since he makes more money than the wife. Of course you
men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
support your family. You find every way you can to make it look as though
you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that??? So, when a
man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man supports
his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called extortion??
"Beverly" <bev...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:cccif0lrv14l2lq8i...@4ax.com...
Kenneth S.
it's extortion. The message from men to women is that CS is GENDER
extortion.
The huge bulk of CS is money that fathers pay mothers (or in some cases,
money that men who used to be husbands pay to their ex-wives for children
born during the marriage that were the result of an adulterous relationship
that the mother had with another man). There is no legal requirement that
mothers use all--or any--of this money to support the children.
But what about the difference between men supporting their children
within marriage and men being forced to pay money to their ex-wives after
divorce (most likely initiated by their ex-wives, in the present day U.S.)?
In that context, a comment by Groucho Marx is relevant. Groucho Marx said
that paying alimony was like feeding hay to a dead horse. The same is true
for so-called "child support," which--because of the glass ceiling on
paternal custody--is gender extortion.
I trust you understand the point now, Ms. Floyd.
(Oh, and by the way, there's a difference between "loose," the
adjective, and "lose," the verb.)
"Rebecca Floyd" <ra_f...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tnlKc.15941$Yr1....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
Bob Whiteside
"Rebecca Floyd" <ra_f...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tnlKc.15941$Yr1....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> generally make more money per year than a female. In a family where both
> parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
> support the family since he makes more money than the wife. Of course you
> men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
> support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
> pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
> support your family. You find every way you can to make it look as though
> you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that??? So, when a
> man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man
supports
> his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called
extortion??
Why aren't women advocating they be allowed to "support their former
family"? Wouldn't it make sense for women to be required to come over a
couple of times a week to do grocery shopping for their divorced husbands
and fix him a few meals? How about cleaning up his residence once a week,
doing some laundry, dusting, vacuuming, and tossing in a little sex in the
deal? Why should women receive the benefits of the husband's contribution
to their marriage, yet have no reciprocal requirement placed on them? Don't
you think women would be screaming about "extortion" too if they were forced
to provide previous martial contributions to their ex-husbands after
divorce?
Rebecca Floyd
> extortion.
It isn't gender extortion. Not only do men pay women child support but
women also pay men child support. It is dependent on which parent has the
highest income. If this were a perfect world, women would be paid the same
amount for a job as men. This world isn't perfect though. It never will
be.
> The huge bulk of CS is money that fathers pay mothers (or in some
cases,
> money that men who used to be husbands pay to their ex-wives for children
> born during the marriage that were the result of an adulterous
relationship
> that the mother had with another man). There is no legal requirement that
> mothers use all--or any--of this money to support the children.
There is always an option of a paternity test. It was once the law that
children born to a couple during a marriage were children of the male in the
relationship. Since we now have paternity testing that is not true any more.
The father always has the right to deny paternity and have any child tested
that he does not believe is his child. A man is not required to pay child
support for a child born during a marriage that is tested and is shown, via
that paternity test, not to be his biological child.
The same is true
> for so-called "child support," which--because of the glass ceiling on
> paternal custody--is gender extortion.
You are living in the past. There is not a glass ceiling on paternal
custody. The norm now is 50/50 custody when at all possible. If both
parents live in the same geographical area, and both parents are fit parents
(I'm not saying that any one gender is more fit than the other) then there
is no reason that 50/50 custody should not be given. It is isn't given at a
local court, a parent always has the option of appealing the ruling.
> But what about the difference between men supporting their children
> within marriage and men being forced to pay money to their ex-wives after
> divorce (most likely initiated by their ex-wives, in the present day
U.S.)?
Most of the time the women cannot afford to initiate the divorce proceeding.
Are you trying to tell me that "most of the time" a divorce is caused by the
female?? I don't think that any one person is the cause of a relationship
splitting up. It is normally a lack of communication with both parties. A
relationship cannot be torn apart by any one individual ... it takes two.
Groucho Marx said
> that paying alimony was like feeding hay to a dead horse.
I don't believe in alimony. In this day and age, each person has the ability
to support themself.
There is no legal requirement that
> mothers use all--or any--of this money to support the children.
Which expenses do you think child support should cover?
"Kenneth S." <nim...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:40f9e9eb$0$5623$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
The message from men to women about "child support" is NOT just that
> it's extortion. >
>
Rebecca Floyd
Get a life Bob. There are situations where women pay child support also Bob.
Like I said, the individual who contributes the most to the family
financially is normally the one paying the child support. It doesn't matter
whether it is the male or female. I am not a femanist and never have been.
However, if you think that all a female is for is "cleaning up his residence
once a week, doing some laundry, dusting, vacuuming, and tossing in a little
should be responsible for cleaning, laundry, dusting and vacuuming.
I'm sorry that you were so hurt by your last relationship that you feel your
ex-wife should come over and toss you some sex in order for you to help
support your children. You need some serious counselling to get over your
last relationship. From what I've read on this site, there are many that
agree.
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:E6mKc.5961$mL5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
teachrmama
"Rebecca Floyd" <ra_f...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tnlKc.15941$Yr1....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> generally make more money per year than a female. In a family where both
> parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
> support the family since he makes more money than the wife. Of course you
> men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
> support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
> pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
> support your family. You find every way you can to make it look as though
> you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that??? So, when a
> man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man
supports
> his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called
extortion??
Think about it this way, Rebecca. When parents are married and living
together, they discuss the child's expenses. In lean times, the child gets
fewer extras, like dance class and sports. When things are going well, they
get more. That's how families work. If dad loses his job, and gets a job
paying 2/3 as much, the whole family tightens their belts. When another
child comes into the family, there are fewer luxuries. But when child
support is assigned, Dad owes, no matter what. Laid off? Doesn't
matter--Junior still "deserves" his tennis lessons. Injured and off work
for a few weeks? Doesn't matter. Princess still gets her voice lessons.
It's not a matter of working together for the good of all any more--it's
that Dad "owes" the kids. Which he never did during the marriage--because
everyone worked with what was there--not with what the state declared was
"supposed" to be there. And I think that it is a valid complaint. Don't
you?
Rebecca Floyd
should talk to my children. They have been living on mere necessities for
the last 10 years. They don't play sports because I can't afford them. They
wear shoes and clothing that I can get either second hand or at Walmart. I
can't afford the "in" clothes and shoes. They don't complain though. They
understand that Mom and Dad together can't afford it. They understand when
Dad is layed off and times get tough. If you think for one minute that a
child gets more when parents divorce you need to talk to children of
divorced parents.
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:cdcqe...@news1.newsguy.com...
Bob Whiteside
> I'm sure my ex-husband would love for me to go clean his house once a
week.
> Get a life Bob. There are situations where women pay child support also
Bob.
> Like I said, the individual who contributes the most to the family
> financially is normally the one paying the child support. It doesn't
matter
> whether it is the male or female. I am not a femanist and never have
been.
> However, if you think that all a female is for is "cleaning up his
residence
> once a week, doing some laundry, dusting, vacuuming, and tossing in a
little
> sex in the deal" you are living in the past. In a marriage, both persons
> should be responsible for cleaning, laundry, dusting and vacuuming.
Oh. now I get your point. The husband has to maintain his role as the major
breadwinner during a marriage, plus take on some of the woman's former
responsibilities around the house. And that is your definition of a "modern
marriage." And since he did his share of the domestic work while married,
his ex-wife has no responsibility to make sure he has an adequate, clean,
well maintain place for their children during visitations. But it's okay
for him to continue to pay a bigger share to support the children just like
when they were married because you define support as being MONEY.
BTW - I am not a "femanist" either. I'm just a guy who believes forcing men
to continue their marital responsibilities post-divorce, without requiring
women to do the same thing, is blatently sexist, gender discrimination.
>
> I'm sorry that you were so hurt by your last relationship that you feel
your
> ex-wife should come over and toss you some sex in order for you to help
> support your children. You need some serious counselling to get over your
> last relationship. From what I've read on this site, there are many that
> agree.
You've got the wrong Bob. I just share the same name with the NG maroon.
teachrmama
> If you really think that the children get more after a divorce maybe you
> should talk to my children. They have been living on mere necessities for
> the last 10 years. They don't play sports because I can't afford them.
They
> wear shoes and clothing that I can get either second hand or at Walmart.
I
> can't afford the "in" clothes and shoes. They don't complain though.
They
> understand that Mom and Dad together can't afford it. They understand
when
> Dad is layed off and times get tough. If you think for one minute that a
> child gets more when parents divorce you need to talk to children of
> divorced parents.
And when dad is laid off, are his child support payments canceled until he
gets another job? Or do arrearages accrue? Is he expected by the system to
pay that money on time, or pay it later with interest accrued? In a married
household, there is not "payback" expected after a tight time. In a child
support situation, arrearages accrue. I did not say that children of
divorce do better than children of marriage--I said that dad was expected to
pay, no matter what. Mom may have to tighten the belt if dad doesn't get
the money to her because of job loss or ilness--but mom can count on the
fact that the system will make sure that the money *does* get there
eventually. Now, if mom gets laid off or ill, belts need to be tightened,
but she never needs to pay back the amount that she didn't spend on the kids
during that time. The state will *not* insist that she pay it. Do you
think it is fair that dad has to pay, no matter what, but mom does not have
the same pressure applied to her?
Bob Whiteside
> If you really think that the children get more after a divorce maybe you
> should talk to my children. They have been living on mere necessities for
> the last 10 years. They don't play sports because I can't afford them.
They
> wear shoes and clothing that I can get either second hand or at Walmart.
I
> can't afford the "in" clothes and shoes. They don't complain though.
They
> understand that Mom and Dad together can't afford it. They understand
when
> Dad is layed off and times get tough. If you think for one minute that a
> child gets more when parents divorce you need to talk to children of
> divorced parents.
Hey, I'm the first one to admit children are worse off financially
post-divorce. The problem is four-fold. Mom's spend the CS on themselves
proving a better house, a better car, and better miscellaneous expenditures
because those three categories used in setting CS are based on marginal
costs, not actual costs for the children. That fact inflates CS awards
significantly since housing and transportation are the two highest expense
categories in every government survey.
And the second reason children are worse off post-divorce is because the CP
mother doesn't have to actually contribute her share of the CS formula
amount since CSE does not track her contribution.
And the third reason children are worse off post-divorce is their is no
accounting of how the CS money determined for both parents to pay is
actually spent.
And the fourth reason children are worse off post-divorce is the mothers
don't consider their reduced tax burden due to child exemptions and child
tax credits to be part of the deal, even though those factors are part of
the CS guideline setting process. Plus the tax laws are written to minimize
a divorced mother's taxes and force divorced fathers to subsidize them
through higher taxes.
Here's a fact you might want to consider. The average divorced mom gets
$400 per month per child and that amount continues to rise every year the
Census Bureau puts out their report on CS statistics. Many of us in this NG
have, or are currently paying much more than the average.
knoxy
> knoxy wrote:
> >
> > In article <40F8ABA7...@feminism.now>, ki...@feminism.now says...
> > > MCP wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004330561,00.html
> > > >
> > > > WOMEN who work part-time are paid 40 per cent less per hour than men in
> > > > full-time jobs, it was revealed yesterday.
> > > > The gap has stayed the same for 25 YEARS, the Equal Opportunities Commission
> > > > reported.
> > > >
> > > > In the Netherlands it is just seven per cent.
> > > >
> > > > The Commission blamed a reluctance to offer women flexible hours for top
> > > > jobs.
> > > >
> > > > And they said it forced women who spend time with their children to take
> > > > lesser-paid positions.
> > > >
> > > > Chief executive Caroline Slocock said: "There's no reason part-time work
> > > > should be lower paid."
> > > >
> > > > Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
> > >
> > > It's time whining feminists starting taking responsibility for their
> > > own fucking choices.
> > >
> > Goes both ways. If women work less to stay home and take care of the
>
> I was talking about Feminists. Not women as a whole.
>
work. Women who work less would still get paid less if they're paid by
the hour and the men who work more hours would get paid more. Seem fair
to me.
> > kids, then men shouldn't whine when the women get custody.
>
> Actually solo mothers are less capable of raising children than solo
> fathers.
>
Don't give me that crap. I've been a solo mother for years and my
daughter is an intelligent, bright, funny, caring, wonderful little girl
who's doing great in school.
My boyfriend who was raised by a single father hates his father and think
he's a cunt (that's the nicest thing he says about him). His father was
abusive as hell.
There are crappy parents of both genders and there are some really great
single mothers and fathers.
> The proof of this in the fact that the state must extort
> monies from men to support the child and mother.
>
A real father would want to support his kids financially IMO.
I don't agree with the american CS system though.
> Children also do
> better raised by solo fathers.
>
I've never seen any proof of that.
> It's not about the best interests of the child; it's about MONEY.
>
It takes money to raise a child.
> Obviously the lawyers and bureaucrats of the bureaucratic Child
> Support (sic) system favor women getting custody: there's usually more
> money to extort from the man than from the woman.
>
I think most of the times women get custody because she's been the
'primary caretaker'. I don't think women should get custody automatically
though, but I don't think money is the reason that happens today.
--
knoxy
mhm34x10
smeeter #6
"The Internet is a gateway to get on the net."
Bob Dole
Bob
> I am so tired of you men saying that child support is extortion.
Not surprised at all, the truth gets old really quick when you don't
what to hear it.
> Men
> generally make more money per year than a female.
Because men generally work lots harder to do so.
> In a family where both
> parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
> support the family since he makes more money than the wife.
Yep, women who live with their husbands generally get supported by his
hard work.
> Of course you
> men would not complain or call it extortion. You are proud that you can
> support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
> pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
> support your family.
Yep, when she breaks up the family and takes his children, he no longer
gets any benefits of the family. After that it's extortion, pure and
simple.
[Hint: When feminists conceived of the "child support" program in the
middle of the 19th century, that was their goal, to allow women to leave
their husbands, take the children, and still force ex husbands to
support them.]
> You find every way you can to make it look as though
> you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that???
Why should men have to make less to avoid extortion?
[Hint: It's HIS money earned with HIS labor.]
> So, when a
> man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man supports
> his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called extortion??
Yes, when he no longer has a wife and family to support, she left and
took the kids, then it IS extortion. I think you've got the picture.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
Bob
>>The message from men to women is that CS is GENDER
>>extortion.
>
>
> It isn't gender extortion. Not only do men pay women child support but
> women also pay men child support.
Almost never. That isn't the general purpose of feminist "child
support." It's intended to pay women after they break up their families.
> It is dependent on which parent has the
> highest income. If this were a perfect world, women would be paid the same
> amount for a job as men. This world isn't perfect though. It never will
> be.
Nope. That LIE doesn't fly. We don't live on Venus.
> You are living in the past. There is not a glass ceiling on paternal
> custody. The norm now is 50/50 custody when at all possible. If both
> parents live in the same geographical area, and both parents are fit parents
> (I'm not saying that any one gender is more fit than the other) then there
> is no reason that 50/50 custody should not be given. It is isn't given at a
> local court, a parent always has the option of appealing the ruling.
ROFLMAO!!!
It ought to be something like that way, but in reality it only very
rarely is. Actually no "custody" should be decided because the CHILD
is not being divorced and has a basic human right to BOTH parents.
> Most of the time the women cannot afford to initiate the divorce proceeding.
Boo Hoo. Then don't.
> Are you trying to tell me that "most of the time" a divorce is caused by the
> female??
About 90% of the time in the USA, yes.
> I don't think that any one person is the cause of a relationship
> splitting up. It is normally a lack of communication with both parties. A
> relationship cannot be torn apart by any one individual ... it takes two.
Most of the time it's the female who causes the split up. Your feminist
myths are showing again.
Bob
Good point.
Bob
> Like I said, the individual who contributes the most to the family
> financially is normally the one paying the child support.
In feminazi wet dreams. That is another way of saying the usual
feminazi "men-pay, women-get-paid."
Sure, toots, we understand that your are a man-hating feminist. You
don't have to keep demonstrating.
> I'm sorry that you were so hurt by your last relationship that you feel your
That's another feminazi LIE, bigot. Go back to your "women's studies"
teacher and tell her that lie doesn't fly in the real world.
Oh yea, top posting is poor manners too. Didn't anyone teach you any
manners?
Bob
> If you really think that the children get more after a divorce maybe you
> should talk to my children. They have been living on mere necessities for
> the last 10 years.
You can't support YOUR children, it's nobody's fault but your own.
> They don't play sports because I can't afford them. They
> wear shoes and clothing that I can get either second hand or at Walmart. I
> can't afford the "in" clothes and shoes. They don't complain though. They
> understand that Mom and Dad together can't afford it. They understand when
> Dad is layed off and times get tough. If you think for one minute that a
> child gets more when parents divorce you need to talk to children of
> divorced parents.
LOL. No, toots, we don't think children get very much with a mother
like you who believes that men owe you a living. It's unfortunate but
true.
Tiffany
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:E6mKc.5961$mL5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
lol... excellent point. I can see it now.... come over and clean, cook and
get jiggy with it and you will receive your support check.
T
Tiffany
> I'm sure my ex-husband would love for me to go clean his house once a
week.
> Get a life Bob. There are situations where women pay child support also
Bob.
> Like I said, the individual who contributes the most to the family
> financially is normally the one paying the child support. It doesn't
matter
> whether it is the male or female. I am not a femanist and never have
been.
> However, if you think that all a female is for is "cleaning up his
residence
> once a week, doing some laundry, dusting, vacuuming, and tossing in a
little
> sex in the deal" you are living in the past. In a marriage, both persons
> should be responsible for cleaning, laundry, dusting and vacuuming.
Then shouldn't both be resposible for finances?
Bob Whiteside
"Tiffany" <tif...@blazenet.net> wrote in message
news:10fl28l...@corp.supernews.com...
Yep! And don't forget - it's for the children!
Phil #3
"Rebecca Floyd" <ra_f...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:tnlKc.15941$Yr1....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
So? You may be tired of hearing it but many of us are tired of *living* it.
>Men
> generally make more money per year than a female.
For good reason. Men work more hours and stay at the same job (those jobs
that aren't shipped out of the US) longer. They don't take off nearly as
often and don't remove themselves from the workforce for periods of from a
month to several years. Men are paid more because they are worth more
overall. Women who work as much and as hard and for as long as men do, earn
the same as men so the onus is on women to make themselves as valuable as
men by being as valuable. It seems you want equal outcomes, not equal
opportunity which means giving those who won't work for it the same as those
who do.
>In a family where both
> parents reside with the children the man usually provides the most $$ to
> support the family since he makes more money than the wife.
For reasons posted above.
>Of course you
> men would not complain or call it extortion.
The difference between supporting a family as one chooses and being forced
to support one's ex to an ambigiously set amount should be plainly evident.
>You are proud that you can
> support your family. However, when a divorce occurs and the man is made to
> pay child support you men all the sudden loose that pride of being able to
> support your family.
"Child support" has nothing to do with supporting a man's family. It is
support paid to one's ex-spouse for any purpose whatever, perhaps even
supporting children but certainly not limited to it. A person paying
so-called "child support" has no voice in what this money is spent toward.
>You find every way you can to make it look as though
> you make a lower amount than you actually do. Why is that???
Because I can always pay more and be sure it is going directly and singly
for the child instead of being used or partly used by the ex. Simple,
really.
>So, when a
> man supports his family that is together it is ok. But, when a man
supports
> his children when there is a divorce it is all the sudden called
extortion??
Since "child support" does not necessarily have to be used to support the
children, it *is* extortion exactly like kidnapping those children and
forcing someone to pay monthly to insure their children are cared for while
the kidnappers use some, much or most of the money for personal use. The
fact that most fathers willfully support their children when they are
allowed to be actual parents to those children should be a clue. Why would a
parent willfully give more than is necessary for sometimes long periods of
time suddenly stop wanting to provide in the same way after a divorce? The
answer is that something has changed and in the case of divorce, it is
because the money is simply not being used for the same purpose.
Phil #3
[snip]
Phil #3
> If you really think that the children get more after a divorce maybe you
> should talk to my children. They have been living on mere necessities for
> the last 10 years. They don't play sports because I can't afford them.
They
> wear shoes and clothing that I can get either second hand or at Walmart.
I
> can't afford the "in" clothes and shoes. They don't complain though.
They
> understand that Mom and Dad together can't afford it. They understand
when
> Dad is layed off and times get tough. If you think for one minute that a
> child gets more when parents divorce you need to talk to children of
> divorced parents.
>
My child *is* a child of divorced parents. While his mother is doing far
better post-divorce, he is doing worse even though there is more money
available to provide these things for him. Does that give you hint? Think.
If child and one parent are doing far worse and one parent is doing much
better..... the answer should be obvious, even to one who doesn't want to
admit the answer.
Phil #3
[snip]
Gini
says...
>
>>The message from men to women is that CS is GENDER
>> extortion.
>
>It isn't gender extortion. Not only do men pay women child support but
>women also pay men child support. It is dependent on which parent has the
>highest income. If this were a perfect world, women would be paid the same
>amount for a job as men. This world isn't perfect though. It never will
>be.
>
>> The huge bulk of CS is money that fathers pay mothers (or in some
>cases,
>> money that men who used to be husbands pay to their ex-wives for children
>> born during the marriage that were the result of an adulterous
>relationship
>> that the mother had with another man). There is no legal requirement that
>> mothers use all--or any--of this money to support the children.
>
>There is always an option of a paternity test. It was once the law that
>children born to a couple during a marriage were children of the male in the
>relationship. Since we now have paternity testing that is not true any more.
>The father always has the right to deny paternity and have any child tested
>that he does not believe is his child. A man is not required to pay child
>support for a child born during a marriage that is tested and is shown, via
>that paternity test, not to be his biological child.
====
Where do you get this stuff? Men are required every day to support kids that
aren't theirs--paternity test or not.
====
>................................
>You are living in the past. There is not a glass ceiling on paternal
>custody. The norm now is 50/50 custody when at all possible.
=====
You sure do sound confident-- You're wrong, but confident. You don't happen to
work at the Women's Center, do you?
=====
=====
Gini
says...
>
>If you really think that the children get more after a divorce maybe you
>should talk to my children. They have been living on mere necessities for
>the last 10 years.
Have you done anything to increase your earnings capability?
===
Bob Whiteside
"Gini" <gi...@jlink.com> wrote in message
news:cdct3...@drn.newsguy.com...
Her positions are right out of a Women's Studies textbook. It's the
post-modernism way of thinking. The positions, the issues, the cause, the
agenda, etc. are more important than the truth. Advancing the assumptions
is much more important than dealing with those pesky little details like the
facts. And so what if some of what is said is not accurate. In may only be
accurate in a few cases, and even a few cases just demonstrates a trend is
occurring.
teachrmama
In all my years of teaching, I have never met a mom that pays child support.
Never. And, as for 50/50 custody, I have met several cases, and all but 1
were negotiated between the parents. Only 1 was court ordered--and both
parents were in court constantly to get it overturned.
Kenneth S.
I done so, I would made a blindingly obvious point. While THEORETICALLY
women could be paying CS to men, in reality that hardly ever happens. There
are two reasons for this. One is the glass ceiling on paternal custody.
The other is that, in the tiny handful of situations where fathers do get
custody, they usually don't seek money from their exes -- which is probably
a sensible choice, because the evidence is that, when mothers are ordered to
pay CS, their payment record is absolutely abysmal.
As for the comment about 50/50 custody, that is a product of the kind of
deliberately loose thinking (read, lying) employed by feminist dogmatists
when it suits them to do so. There is nothing like 50/50 custody in the
U.S. today.
Feminists try to pretend that the custody situation has moved in the
direction of joint custody. Their normal technique for camouflaging the
continued glass ceiling on paternal custody is to act as if joint legal
custody, with the mother having physical custody, is different from sole
custody to the mother. It is not.
As anyone who has experienced it knows, joint legal custody where the
mother has physical custody is no different from the mother having sole
legal custody. Furthermore, any tiny progress in changing the custody
situation has come in the teeth of vehement opposition from feminist
organizations.
Feminists are determined to maintain sole maternal custody, because they
know the financial and other benefits that mothers derive from it. Not the
least of the benefits--from the feminist point of view--is that mothers who
have a guarantee of custody, plus CS, have a much freer hand in deciding
whether or not to force their husbands out of the family. So, even within
intact marriages, the current custody/CS situation strengthens the hands of
wives vis-a-vis their husbands.
"Gini" <gi...@jlink.com> wrote in message
news:cdct3...@drn.newsguy.com...
Gini
says...
They are also worse off because courts don't give a damn if they ever see their
dad.
=====
>
>
Gini
>
>Rebecca Floyd wrote:
>>>The message from men to women is that CS is GENDER
>>>extortion.
>>
>>
>> It isn't gender extortion. Not only do men pay women child support but
>> women also pay men child support.
>
>Almost never. That isn't the general purpose of feminist "child
>support." It's intended to pay women after they break up their families.
>
>
>
>> It is dependent on which parent has the
>> highest income. If this were a perfect world, women would be paid the same
>> amount for a job as men. This world isn't perfect though. It never will
>> be.
>
>Nope. That LIE doesn't fly. We don't live on Venus.
>
>
>> You are living in the past. There is not a glass ceiling on paternal
>> custody. The norm now is 50/50 custody when at all possible. If both
>> parents live in the same geographical area, and both parents are fit parents
>> (I'm not saying that any one gender is more fit than the other) then there
>> is no reason that 50/50 custody should not be given. It is isn't given at a
>> local court, a parent always has the option of appealing the ruling.
>
>ROFLMAO!!!
>
>It ought to be something like that way, but in reality it only very
>rarely is.
It rarely is because dad is too broke, post CS order, to appeal. While moms get
free legal representation, dads must pay for theirs (and is usually charged by
CSE for the "mom's" legal costs). It's obvious Rebecca doesn't get out of the
"Women's Center" much.
===
Tiffany
Yep, I know of about 2 women who pay support and its very minimal. Those are
the 2 families that the father has custody and the mother is the every other
weekend parent. I know of NO families that go 50/50.
T
Indyguy1
<snip to>
>The norm now is 50/50 custody when at all possible.
Not in the state of Illinois. 50/50 is usually only granted when BOTH parents
want it and have shown the courts they can co-parent and get along with each
other.
If both
>parents live in the same geographical area, and both parents are fit parents
>(I'm not saying that any one gender is more fit than the other) then there
>is no reason that 50/50 custody should not be given.
The courts in Illinois, and others would disagree. Not all children do well
with constant back and force or if the parents are hatefull towards one
another.
It is isn't given at a
>local court, a parent always has the option of appealing the ruling.
In Illionis unless BOTH parents agree to 50/50, an appeal would be a waste of
time and money.
Mrs Indyguy
Indyguy1
<snip to>
>> Men
>> generally make more money per year than a female.
>
>Because men generally work lots harder to do so.
LOL, OMG. You can't possibly believe that men in general work harder and that
is why women are generally paid .70 for every dollar a man makes. <sarcasim
on> I'm sure it has nothing to do with women being the ones to jack their
careers around for the sake of their families. <sarcasim off>
You know what Bob, it would be really simple to end all of this crap with CS
and custody. All that men have to do is marry women that earn equal to what
they earn and then they can do an equal amount of ALL household tasks and child
rearing. Full custody for each parent and no CS changing hands would be the
outcome.
Mrs Indyguy
Bob
> boby:
>
> <snip to>
>
>>>Men
>>>generally make more money per year than a female.
>>
>>Because men generally work lots harder to do so.
>
>
> LOL, OMG. You can't possibly believe that men in general work harder and that
> is why women are generally paid .70 for every dollar a man makes. <sarcasim
> on>
Indeed, if women actually worked 70% as hard as men they would be
earning a fair amount. But women don't work as hard as men, and that
feminist LIE about equal pay for unequal work doesn't fly, bigot.
> I'm sure it has nothing to do with women being the ones to jack their
> careers around for the sake of their families. <sarcasim off>
Nope, it has to do with men sacrificing our own time with our families
for the goal of supporting our families. It's obvious that you don't
comprehend sacrifice for your family.
> You know what Bob, it would be really simple to end all of this crap with CS
> and custody.
Indeed it would be simple just to end it all, dump the judges and C$
enforcement bitches overboard.
> All that men have to do is marry women that earn equal to what
> they earn
Been there, done that. About 3 months later she always decides to "find
herself" or for whatever lame excuse and quits her job to be a SAHM or
just "keep house." That is virtually universal female behavior these days.
> and then they can do an equal amount of ALL household tasks and child
> rearing.
More typical feminist crap. You expect the father to work his arse off
in long, hard, real work, and then do half of her work at home in
addition to all of his work at home. Fat lazy soap watching bitches!
> Full custody for each parent and no CS changing hands would be the
> outcome.
> Mrs Indyguy
Full custody without any "custody" decision and no C$ at all would be a
good thing, and would save bundles of tax money as well.
Equality is going to have to be forced up the arses of you feminists
though, you won't accept equal rights without a huge fight.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
Beverly
>Indyguy1 wrote:
>> boby:
>>
>> <snip to>
>>
>>>>Men
>>>>generally make more money per year than a female.
>>>
>>>Because men generally work lots harder to do so.
>>
>>
>> LOL, OMG. You can't possibly believe that men in general work harder and that
>> is why women are generally paid .70 for every dollar a man makes. <sarcasim
>> on>
>
>Indeed, if women actually worked 70% as hard as men they would be
>earning a fair amount. But women don't work as hard as men, and that
>feminist LIE about equal pay for unequal work doesn't fly, bigot.
The first time I realized than men were paid more than women for the
same position was when I worked at a bank as a bank teller. A man I
worked with and I were hired on the same day and trained at the same
time. We were prohibited from discussing pay and did not do so for
quite a while. As time went on, my duties increased exponentially
whereas his did not. Not only did I process transactions all day as
he did, but I also handled all the large cash transactions (required
counting hundreds of thousands of dollars correctly and quickly) and
ran the coin machine which often required heavy lifting. Because I
could balance to the penny so quickly, I was called upon to also help
others balance, including this man, as no one was to leave until all
cash had balanced. This man read a book during slow periods while I
was lugging coin, etc... . Once we did discuss pay, I learned that he
was not only hired at thousands more per year, but received bigger
raises than I did. Can you explain how I worked less hard than he
did?
Bob
It's your fiction, babe. Nobody can explain but the author.
BTW: Why were you willing to work for less? Did you have less
experience, less education, or were you just less in need of changing
jobs to get ahead?
Counting coins doesn't sound like a very important or difficult job.
Then, of course, are the hidden wages such as higher medical insurance
premiums for women, much higher absenteeism and usage of sick leave,
higher risk of "SH" or EEO suits, etc., all of which add to the
employer's cost and your "real" wages as an economist would add them up.
Meanwhile I have known many women who have been hired, offered
promotions, and paid more because of AA, and EEO quotas. Most banks
these days are dominated by female employees. Men have been all but
squeezed out of what once was a decent job for many men.
Beverly
I like that line, Bob, but we already know that you can't distinguish
between fiction and reality.
>
>BTW: Why were you willing to work for less? Did you have less
>experience, less education, or were you just less in need of changing
>jobs to get ahead?
In fact, I had more education than the male employee. I was in
college pursuing a degree in accounting and he was a high school
graduate. I was not told what males were being paid for the same
position when I was hired and I was offered a wage that was above my
previous wage and thought it was a step up.
>
>Counting coins doesn't sound like a very important or difficult job.
Being a bank teller isn't difficult either, but we were discussing how
hard a woman works versus how hard a man works in relation to
compensation. Does it not stand to argue that a woman is working
harder in a particular position if she does all the man does in that
position and more?
>
>Then, of course, are the hidden wages such as higher medical insurance
>premiums for women, much higher absenteeism and usage of sick leave,
>higher risk of "SH" or EEO suits, etc., all of which add to the
>employer's cost and your "real" wages as an economist would add them up.
Funny, I handle the medical insurance premiums where I currently work
and the distinguishment among rates are family or single, not male or
female. We pay the same premiums regardless of gender.
While I might agree that women of child-bearing age or young enough to
have small children are often discriminated against during the hiring
process, we must ask ourselves why a woman might have a higher rate of
absenteeism or usage of sick leave. It is oftentimes to care for sick
children. If the man stays home with the sick children more often
than the woman, should his wages be less because he does so?
I've never filed a SH or EEO suit, hence MY wages should not be
affected anymore than my male counterpart's.
>
>Meanwhile I have known many women who have been hired, offered
>promotions, and paid more because of AA, and EEO quotas. Most banks
>these days are dominated by female employees. Men have been all but
>squeezed out of what once was a decent job for many men.
Yep, and the practice of meeting these quotas often places one person
in a position of filling more than one quota. The government is
notorious for promoting minority females to meet both the female and
minority quotas in one action. Non-minority females still have grave
difficulty.
>
>Bob
AZ Astrea
Iced tea all over my keyboard! I can't stop snickering!
~AZ~
>
> T
>
>
AZ Astrea
"Indyguy1" <indy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040718121321...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> boby:
>
> <snip to>
>
> >> Men
> >> generally make more money per year than a female.
> >
> >Because men generally work lots harder to do so.
>
> LOL, OMG. You can't possibly believe that men in general work harder and
that
> is why women are generally paid .70 for every dollar a man makes.
<sarcasim
> on> I'm sure it has nothing to do with women being the ones to jack their
> careers around for the sake of their families. <sarcasim off>
Most people have no understanding what feminism is at its core. Here's a
take on it that I feel is the truth:
"Feminism does not say that
women should be able to get married, have kids, and have a career, and
the world will be happy and shiny for you. Feminism says that women
should have equal OPPORTUNITIES.
Men aren't owed an easy fatherhood (if they have kids). If their wives
choose to afford them this so the men can be the breadwinners, so be
it. Women, generally, are more inclined to raise the children than
men. Feminism doesn't say women must cease this, nor does it say that
it is inherently wrong. It doesn't say that anyone is owed an easier
ride to even the playing field once you've changed the game you're
playing. Feminism says that we are all owed only one thing: equal
opportunity.
Men and women have equal opportunities for equal jobs when they are in
all other ways equal. I.e., Man and woman both attend the same
university, get the same grades in the same courses, have equal
experience, equal temperaments and appearances, and similar interests
and activities. If a woman wants to have children and have her husband
raise the children, that's the essence of feminism: she's got the
opportunity to do the same thing many men do. That's equality, and
that's what feminism is about, not some idyllic world of smiley faces,
googoo eyes, rainbows, and babies with high-paying full-time flex-time
careers attached to them.
Feminism promised only equal opportunity, and if you choose to be
unequally burdened, YOU are removing yourself from the equal
opportunities. Your choices carry consequences. If a runner decides to
lop off his legs, he can't expect the world to change running for him.
He's removed his equality, and his equal opportunity is lost. So, too,
with careers. If (people) can't understand this basic tenet of feminism,
(they're) wasting (their) anger by ranting about the evils of
feminism. If (a woman) wants the easy life she dreams feminism promised, she
should go marry Archie Bunker."
You said it yourself, "I'm sure it has nothing to do with women being the
ones to jack their
> careers around for the sake of their families."
Yes, it has everything to do with that fact.
Women make less money than men because they did it to themselves. Men, even
if they have a family, are still going to spend more time working and trying
to advance their career than most women will.
~AZ~
AZ Astrea
"Beverly" <bev...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:ondlf0h82cqusorti...@4ax.com...
There could be many reasons why this was so. You seem to say that you were
equals just because you were both hired and trained at the same time. Is it
possible that he had more education than you? Or more work experience? On
your application did they ask how much $ you would be willing to work for?
On my future dh's application where they asked about pay we talked about it
and put what seemed like a rather high amount. They hired him at that
amount and it was over a year later that he learned that many of the other
people working at equal jobs were being paid a lot more and many were being
paid a lot less. There are just too many factors to consider before saying
that it's a "men get paid more" situation.
~AZ~
Bob
> "Indyguy1" <indy...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040718121321...@mb-m02.aol.com...
>
>>boby:
>>
>><snip to>
>>
>>>>Men
>>>>generally make more money per year than a female.
>>>
>>>Because men generally work lots harder to do so.
>>
>>LOL, OMG. You can't possibly believe that men in general work harder and
>
> that
>
>>is why women are generally paid .70 for every dollar a man makes.
>
> <sarcasim
>
>>on> I'm sure it has nothing to do with women being the ones to jack their
>>careers around for the sake of their families. <sarcasim off>
>
> --------------------------
> Most people have no understanding what feminism is at its core. Here's a
> take on it that I feel is the truth:
> "Feminism does not say that
> women should be able to get married, have kids, and have a career, and
> the world will be happy and shiny for you. Feminism says that women
> should have equal OPPORTUNITIES.
150 some years ago feminism adopted a goal of having women leave their
husbands, take the kids, and still be supported by him. It took most of
a hundred years to make the goal into law, and another half century to
make it so intolerable that it's widely recognized as a heinous mistake.
That's what feminism is all about.
> Men aren't owed an easy fatherhood (if they have kids). If their wives
> choose to afford them this so the men can be the breadwinners, so be
> it. Women, generally, are more inclined to raise the children than
> men. Feminism doesn't say women must cease this, nor does it say that
> it is inherently wrong. It doesn't say that anyone is owed an easier
> ride to even the playing field once you've changed the game you're
> playing. Feminism says that we are all owed only one thing: equal
> opportunity.
Feminist Definition: "Equal Rights" --> Every damn thing women want
and to hell with men and children.
Yep, "equal rights," and "equal opportunity," the feminist goals -- if
you understand feminist language.
> Men and women have equal opportunities for equal jobs when they are in
> all other ways equal. I.e., Man and woman both attend the same
> university, get the same grades in the same courses, have equal
> experience, equal temperaments and appearances, and similar interests
> and activities.
Except that K-12 and universities blatantly discriminate against
boys/men all over the place.
> If a woman wants to have children and have her husband
> raise the children, that's the essence of feminism: she's got the
> opportunity to do the same thing many men do. That's equality, and
> that's what feminism is about, not some idyllic world of smiley faces,
> googoo eyes, rainbows, and babies with high-paying full-time flex-time
> careers attached to them.
Except that women have "a woman's right to choose" and a host of other
legal benefits that men don't have.
> Feminism promised only equal opportunity, and if you choose to be
> unequally burdened, YOU are removing yourself from the equal
> opportunities. Your choices carry consequences. If a runner decides to
> lop off his legs, he can't expect the world to change running for him.
> He's removed his equality, and his equal opportunity is lost. So, too,
> with careers. If (people) can't understand this basic tenet of feminism,
> (they're) wasting (their) anger by ranting about the evils of
> feminism. If (a woman) wants the easy life she dreams feminism promised, she
> should go marry Archie Bunker."
Feminist Definition: "Equal Rights" --> Every damn thing women want
and to hell with men and children.
> You said it yourself, "I'm sure it has nothing to do with women being the
> ones to jack their
>
>>careers around for the sake of their families."
>
> Yes, it has everything to do with that fact.
> Women make less money than men because they did it to themselves. Men, even
> if they have a family, are still going to spend more time working and trying
> to advance their career than most women will.
> ~AZ~
Indeed! Men almost always work longer hours, work harder, get more work
done, and earn the extra pay. Women are, for the most part, overpaid
for the work they do.
AZ Astrea
Unfortunately she may be working harder but not smarter.
-----------------
> >
> >Then, of course, are the hidden wages such as higher medical insurance
> >premiums for women, much higher absenteeism and usage of sick leave,
> >higher risk of "SH" or EEO suits, etc., all of which add to the
> >employer's cost and your "real" wages as an economist would add them up.
>
> Funny, I handle the medical insurance premiums where I currently work
> and the distinguishment among rates are family or single, not male or
> female. We pay the same premiums regardless of gender.
Yeah, this is true for insurance through work but when buying insurance on
your own women pay more than men. What really irritates me is that a woman
who has no intention of having kids and may even be snipped should have to
pay the same amount as a woman who chooses to have kids.
-----------------------
>
> While I might agree that women of child-bearing age or young enough to
> have small children are often discriminated against during the hiring
> process, we must ask ourselves why a woman might have a higher rate of
> absenteeism or usage of sick leave. It is oftentimes to care for sick
> children. If the man stays home with the sick children more often
> than the woman, should his wages be less because he does so?
Parents cost a company more due to the things you listed. If I had a
business I would hire an older person or a person who does not want kids
over a parent with small kids anyday. Yeah I know you can't ask those kind
of questions but while interviewing and/or just chatting you can learn
enough.
And sure, if men were the ones who always took time off and stayed home with
the sick kids they should earn less. But in general, they don't.
~AZ~
Bob
>
> Funny, I handle the medical insurance premiums where I currently work
> and the distinguishment among rates are family or single, not male or
> female. We pay the same premiums regardless of gender.
You pay the same, but women cost the insurance company (and probably
your employer) 3 times as much as men since women use about 3/4 of the
medical services in the USA.
Paying the same is discrimination against men. You don't whine about
that now do you.
> While I might agree that women of child-bearing age or young enough to
> have small children are often discriminated against during the hiring
> process, we must ask ourselves why a woman might have a higher rate of
> absenteeism or usage of sick leave. It is oftentimes to care for sick
> children. If the man stays home with the sick children more often
> than the woman, should his wages be less because he does so?
>
> I've never filed a SH or EEO suit, hence MY wages should not be
> affected anymore than my male counterpart's.
The RISK of hiring you is higher, and thus your COST to your employer is
higher than hiring a man with low risk. Sooner or later some percentage
of women employees will collect EEO or SH claims, and the employer
either has to buy insurance or be self insured.
Every EEO and SH settlement raises the COST and thus the "real wages"
you are paid.
>>Meanwhile I have known many women who have been hired, offered
>>promotions, and paid more because of AA, and EEO quotas. Most banks
>>these days are dominated by female employees. Men have been all but
>>squeezed out of what once was a decent job for many men.
>
> Yep, and the practice of meeting these quotas often places one person
> in a position of filling more than one quota. The government is
> notorious for promoting minority females to meet both the female and
> minority quotas in one action. Non-minority females still have grave
> difficulty.
Lots of companies and government agencies have to hire women for quotas,
so they hire women who are under qualified and cost more than men. Even
so they end up with huge lawsuits, such as Wal Mart recently.
Phil #3
"AZ Astrea" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10fpapb...@corp.supernews.com...
I tend to believe it is more a state of mind. I have many employees under my
direction. Some are lazy, some are energetic about their job. Some are
always trying to do more, learn more and do their job better; others are
just doing what it takes to get by. Some of each are men and some are women,
as well as some of each are black and some of each are white, but due to my
experience with the various agencies and groups, It's always worrisome to
give raises to those white men who are harder working for fear the lazy
women or blacks will protest with the same old, tired canard of sexual or
racial bias. This is true even when the ability or hard work is demonstrable
I don't have the same concerns when giving the raise to a hard working black
or woman because even if I were showing favoritism, I doubt it would become
a problem with EEOC, NAACP, NOW or the feddle gummit. (They rarely care
about men unless they are black or homosexual).
Like a government agency, it's not the answers that are condeming, it's the
questions.
Phil #3
[snip]
Tiffany
Why? You like that idea? lol jk
T
Tiffany
"Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40FCB144...@hotmail.com...
> Beverly wrote:
>
> >
> > Funny, I handle the medical insurance premiums where I currently work
> > and the distinguishment among rates are family or single, not male or
> > female. We pay the same premiums regardless of gender.
>
>
> You pay the same, but women cost the insurance company (and probably
> your employer) 3 times as much as men since women use about 3/4 of the
> medical services in the USA.
>
> Paying the same is discrimination against men. You don't whine about
> that now do you.
>
>
>
> > While I might agree that women of child-bearing age or young enough to
> > have small children are often discriminated against during the hiring
> > process, we must ask ourselves why a woman might have a higher rate of
> > absenteeism or usage of sick leave. It is oftentimes to care for sick
> > children. If the man stays home with the sick children more often
> > than the woman, should his wages be less because he does so?
> >
> > I've never filed a SH or EEO suit, hence MY wages should not be
> > affected anymore than my male counterpart's.
>
> The RISK of hiring you is higher, and thus your COST to your employer is
> higher than hiring a man with low risk. Sooner or later some percentage
> of women employees will collect EEO or SH claims, and the employer
> either has to buy insurance or be self insured.
>
> Every EEO and SH settlement raises the COST and thus the "real wages"
> you are paid.
What is EEO and SH?
Tiffany
> AZ Astrea wrote:
> > "Indyguy1" <indy...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040718121321...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >
> >>boby:
> >>
>
> Indeed! Men almost always work longer hours, work harder, get more work
> done, and earn the extra pay. Women are, for the most part, overpaid
> for the work they do.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
Yeah, tell that to my ex. I think he forgot he was a man then.
T
GudGye11
grant 50/50 joint custody unless BOTH parents agree to it, I disagree with her
contention that there would be massive problems with a 50/50 split. In fact,
her comment about it not being good for the kids because of all the hate going
back and forth only reinforces the fact that the mother will get custody.
Think about it...if Janey and Tommy are in the backseat and are arguing about
playing with a toy, and Mommy turns to them and says, "If you two can't play
well together with the toy, I'm going to give the toy to Janey," is that any
incentive for Janey to cooperate and share? Of course not! She has ALL the
incentive to CREATE disruption; if she creates enough, she gets the toy all to
herself! Same thing is true with custody, and my ex-wife knew this little
fact: If we both don't agree on custody, she will probably get the kids. She
had no incentive to cooperate or behave in any manner. It almost becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy on her part -- create enough disruption to give the
appearance that joint custody won't work, and then get full custody.
In article <20040718120213...@mb-m02.aol.com>, indy...@aol.com
Indyguy1
>While Mrs. Indy is absolutely correct about the Illinois courts that don't
>grant 50/50 joint custody unless BOTH parents agree to it, I disagree with
>her
>contention that there would be massive problems with a 50/50 split.
I didn't say there would be *massive* problems, I simply said that not all kids
do well with the back and forth and if the two parents are hatefull to one
another some kids will have bigger problems than a custody/visiation model.
In fact,
>her comment about it not being good for the kids because of all the hate
>going
>back and forth only reinforces the fact that the mother will get custody.
Hate can come from either side and it really doesn't matter what side it comes
from, it can damage children.
>Think about it...if Janey and Tommy are in the backseat and are arguing about
>playing with a toy, and Mommy turns to them and says, "If you two can't play
>well together with the toy, I'm going to give the toy to Janey," is that any
>incentive for Janey to cooperate and share? Of course not! She has ALL the
>incentive to CREATE disruption; if she creates enough, she gets the toy all
>to
>herself! Same thing is true with custody, and my ex-wife knew this little
>fact: If we both don't agree on custody, she will probably get the kids.
>She
>had no incentive to cooperate or behave in any manner. It almost becomes a
>self-fulfilling prophecy on her part -- create enough disruption to give the
>appearance that joint custody won't work, and then get full custody.
Well your ex is a jerk and a poor excuse for a mother, if as you say, she
created problems just so she would have full custody.
That being said, the biggest incentive for any parent to get along with their
ex is the well being of their children.
Mrs Indyguy
Bob
> While Mrs. Indy is absolutely correct about the Illinois courts that don't
> grant 50/50 joint custody unless BOTH parents agree to it, I disagree with her
> contention that there would be massive problems with a 50/50 split. In fact,
> her comment about it not being good for the kids because of all the hate going
> back and forth only reinforces the fact that the mother will get custody.
> Think about it...if Janey and Tommy are in the backseat and are arguing about
> playing with a toy, and Mommy turns to them and says, "If you two can't play
> well together with the toy, I'm going to give the toy to Janey," is that any
> incentive for Janey to cooperate and share? Of course not! She has ALL the
> incentive to CREATE disruption; if she creates enough, she gets the toy all to
> herself! Same thing is true with custody, and my ex-wife knew this little
> fact: If we both don't agree on custody, she will probably get the kids. She
> had no incentive to cooperate or behave in any manner. It almost becomes a
> self-fulfilling prophecy on her part -- create enough disruption to give the
> appearance that joint custody won't work, and then get full custody.
Good analogy. Most women today act like 4 year olds, especially in
divorce situations.
Deidre and Peter McLennan
I prefer top posting, and that is where we agree.
My ex wife (Divorced Oct 1993) has not worked since 1987 and has had 4
children to 3 fathers. I raised her first born (which has a different
father) and the two I fathered until the youngest was 2 years old.
She left me to another man and had her fourth child to him. Then kicked him
out...
Yes I feel VERY stupid, and I have been paying out of the pocket and
mentally ever since.
Cases involving me:
from Dec 1995 to June 2000 I raised the three boys including the oldest who
I did not father. The EX paid $360 in total for child support.
July 2000 she gets custody after some extremely manipulative and child
altering ways. The first WEEKS child support is assessed at $600 per week!
The youngest child comes to live with me, and to illustrate what she did to
the boys she said to him "If you live with your father you will NOT see me
again"
She did not see Lachlan for more than 7 hours from June 2001 to January
2004.
During that time I had 100% care of Lachlan and fortnightly access to
Jayden. She did NOT even send a birthday card or call Lachlan. The
Australian Child support system is so f@cked up that Lachlan did not exist
in the formula and I had to per her $214 per week for Jayden! Even though I
had majority combined care (67%) of the two children.
She resumed contact with Lachlan after some nonsense where she only wanted
to see him during the week. Finally negotiated weekend contact.
She now refuses to let Lachlan go to his sporting events that are on her
weekend. Even if someone goes to her house to pick him up!
Now I have Lachlan the same amount of time she has Jayden, 100% EQUAL shared
care. Guess what?? I still have to pay $214 per week. The only
concession???? is that she has not yet claimed for the minimal amount of
time she has Lachlan. If she does claim, which I expect at some stage to
occur, my CS will go up to $240 per week.
I have two children under 4 to my second marriage, and the second child is
worth $6 per week in child support reduction. No Bull!!
The child NOT in your care is worth 40 times more money than the child IN
your care. And a child of the relationship in your full time care is worth
NOTHING!!
Now Rebecca, most of us here except for the red necks believe in supporting
children financially. NOT rewarding mothers for not working, and having as
many children as possible to different fathers.
As always the solution is very simple. Work out the cost of raising a child
in a given location, divide that by two, and make allowance for contact
time.
DO NOT provide lifestyle payments because they do not work and do not go
toward the children. The money just goes into the mothers consolidated
revenue pocket to spend on her whole family.
And now for the fun case:
Mother of five children to five fathers, lives in Brisbane Australia. All
the fathers are earning over $126K. She gets 18% of $115K off each of the
dumb f...s
She now has an untaxable income of $105,500pa. Or approximately $200K if
she actually worked for the money.
Now Rebecca, you tell me if the child support scheme is working?
And yes I regret deeply that I got $360 in total from my ex wife. I regret
marrying her, I have nothing but contempt for the missaligned Family court
system, and the totally magic numbers that the child support system comes up
with.
I dont feel like working anymore, but have too, to continue to support my
children of the second marriage. My mortgage is going backwards at exactly
the same rate as my ex is paying off her house. Once that is paid off she
will move to save for a car. Once the children are 18 they will be living
with me, because she will kick them out of the house.
Rebecca, Get a job, care for your children, and stop expecting a living off
other people. Your ex should pay CS, but not to the detriment of his
finacial and mental well being.
Peter
Bob
> Rebecca,
>
> I prefer top posting, and that is where we agree.
>
> My ex wife (Divorced Oct 1993) has not worked since 1987 and has had 4
> children to 3 fathers. I raised her first born (which has a different
> father) and the two I fathered until the youngest was 2 years old.
>
> She left me to another man and had her fourth child to him. Then kicked him
> out...
She is a good example of why abortion ought not be a choice sometimes.
4 kids by 3 fathers, and she can't take care of any of them.
dustnaz
in the work place not taking care of things at home. So, the Women's
Liberation Movement changed society views to increase the mans salary so
that they could remain in the home and instill the requisite morals and
values in the children. Oh, the problem they were combating was "gang
violence"....ask yer grandmother...
Eric
1. Your situation is not always the situation of the majority of
people. I could point out a situation where a woman makes more than me
for less work. This does not mean men work harder than women, for less
pay. Statistics are not reliable either. I will explain later.
2. Women have, in some cases, more opportunities that comparable men.
For example, law students are almost ninety percent male. The same is
true for the engineering fields. Women with engineering degrees almost
always receive the job they apply for due to AA. This is true of law
school admissions also. These are high paying jobs not because men do
them, but because they are some of the most difficult tasks in
society. This means less people are qualified to do them. Women are
not drawn to these fields. This distorts the man vs. women pay scale.
Entrepreneurs are some of the richest people in the world, Gates,
Forbes, etc., and they are also predominantly male. If Gates makes 20
millions a year (just an example, I do not know or care how much he
makes) versus the highest earning womans' 10 million. 200 men and 200
women all make 45,000 a year. These 201 men average 144,278 dollars a
year. These 201 women make 94,527 dollars a year. These 201 women make
35% less than these 201 men. In statistics Gates would be called an
outlier. His and the highest earning womans income would not be
counted. Most outliers are men. Look at the list of the richest people
in America. Statistics must be qualified. On the lower side of the
pay spectrum, most hard physical labor jobs are taken by men. This
further distorts how much women make versus men. Job preferences
affect pay. I may chose to shovel manure for 10 dollars are hour, or I
can answer phones for 7.50. Teachers and social workers may do the
world a lot of good, but more people are qualified to take that
position and women seem to be drawn toward these professions. My
fiance will be a teacher, I will work in industry. She can expect to
make less than 30,000 per year and I will make over 40,000 when we
start our careers. This is because we chose these positions. Each
person chooses how much he or she may make. Men tend to choose money
over personal fulfillment or fringe benifits. This is a question of
what people value as individuals. This is a cultural issue. More men
value high pay.
3. Women have children. For every child this puts her one year of
experience behind her male counterpart. (Maybe less actual time.) My
advice would be to enroll in classes to advance your career while
pregnant and rearing your children. If a women would like to stay home
from 5 months pregnant until a child is 4 months old, for example, she
could earn a batchelors degree.. And please do not respond that a
women may be too busy, etc. Many students are extremely busy and many
classes can be taken on the internet. Fifteen hours of class is not
nearly as hard to do as 40 hours of work. Homework and assignments can
be done at home, with children present.
People will always feel that things are unjust. This is the way of the
world. Life is not completely fair is every situation. Your situation
of personal discrimination and unfairness does nothing to justify a
position that the entire system is unfair.
Oh, and whining is just annoying. If you whine in this group about men
being paid more, I can safely assume your whine at work about
unfairness, difficult tasks, and a number of other things. Noone likes
a whiner.
Thanks All, ERic
By the way, I apologize for rambling and a long post. Also, there is
nothing wrong with answering phones. I answer phones at one of my
jobs, but I might shovel shit for more money, as long as my employer
furnished rubber boots. :)
GudGye11
The mother of Ray Charles' 16 year-old son has asked a Los Angeles court to
increase child support for the boy from $3,000 a month to at least $60,000.
Mary Anne den Bok says additional money from Charles's estate would provide her
son, Corey Robinson den Bok, with "the lifestyle he enjoyed" before Charles
died in June.
Her petition seeks a minimum figure of $60,000 a month but suggests the
appropriate support should be $240,800 per month. A hearing is scheduled for
September 27th in LA County Superior Court.
The famed singer and musician was 73 when he died of acute liver disease at his
Beverly Hills home on June 10th.
He left 12 children and, according to the petition, a $100 million estate.
The Dave©
> Mother of Ray Charles' Son Seeks More Child Support
>
> The mother of Ray Charles' 16 year-old son has asked a Los Angeles
> court to increase child support for the boy from $3,000 a month to at
> least $60,000. Mary Anne den Bok says additional money from
> Charles's estate would provide her son, Corey Robinson den Bok, with
> "the lifestyle he enjoyed" before Charles died in June.
>
> Her petition seeks a minimum figure of $60,000 a month but suggests
> the appropriate support should be $240,800 per month. A hearing is
> scheduled for September 27th in LA County Superior Court.
Which she'll get to "administer", no doubt.
> The famed singer and musician was 73 when he died of acute liver
> disease at his Beverly Hills home on June 10th.
>
> He left 12 children and, according to the petition, a $100 million
> estate.
What does his will say? Seems to me that his estate would be
distributed and each kid, whether minor or adult, would be set for life
regardless and any other factors.
--
If Illinois is the "Land of Lincoln", what were they before the Civil
War?
Werebat
The DaveŠ wrote:
It's... not about the kids.
For all we know, that's exactly how Ray left it, and she's grubbing for
money for herself (i.e. taking from the other kids AND HER OWN to line
her own pockets).
- Ron ^*^
The Dave©
> > What does his will say? Seems to me that his estate would be
> > distributed and each kid, whether minor or adult, would be set for
> > life regardless and any other factors.
>
> It's... not about the kids.
>
> For all we know, that's exactly how Ray left it, and she's grubbing
> for money for herself (i.e. taking from the other kids AND HER OWN to
> line her own pockets).
In extreme cases like this, I always can't help but laugh when the
person persuing the money tries to justify why the kid needs $248,000 a
month, or whatever it is.
Dusty
"The DaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:3aH4d.4759$KO6....@news01.roc.ny...
> > Werebat wrote:
> > > What does his will say? Seems to me that his estate would be
> > > distributed and each kid, whether minor or adult, would be set for
> > > life regardless and any other factors.
> >
> > It's... not about the kids.
> >
> > For all we know, that's exactly how Ray left it, and she's grubbing
> > for money for herself (i.e. taking from the other kids AND HER OWN to
> > line her own pockets).
>
> In extreme cases like this, I always can't help but laugh when the
> person persuing the money tries to justify why the kid needs $248,000 a
> month, or whatever it is.
$60k x 12 months = $720,000.00 a year.
Now, if she convinces the kid to go to college (at age 18 or so) and stay at
home (or bs's the court into it) then he.. sorry, SHE, stands to make
another $4,320,000.00 (4.3 Million!!!) on top of what the kid would get from
his father's will.
So, $100 Million / 12 kids = $8.3 MILLION per child! But, if the courts go
along with her bull shit, she stands to GAIN $4.3 million more then the
others. Thereby depriving the other kids of $325k each. Or $3.9 million
collectively.
** sarcasm alert! **
But since her child -needs- $60k above and beyond what the others would get
from their father's will, she'll get it.
The Dave©
> $60k x 12 months = $720,000.00 a year.
She's seeking $60,000/mo... MINIMUM. She says $248,000/mo
($2,976,000/yr) would be... <cough>... "appropriate".
> Now, if she convinces the kid to go to college (at age 18 or so) and
> stay at home (or bs's the court into it) then he.. sorry, SHE,
> stands to make another $4,320,000.00 (4.3 Million!!!) on top of what
> the kid would get from his father's will.
>
> So, $100 Million / 12 kids = $8.3 MILLION per child! But, if the
> courts go along with her bull shit, she stands to GAIN $4.3 million
> more then the others. Thereby depriving the other kids of $325k
> each. Or $3.9 million collectively.
>
> ** sarcasm alert! **
>
> But since her child -needs- $60k above and beyond what the others
> would get from their father's will, she'll get it.
I hope that even the most liberal child support-friendly judge, who
probably makes only a mere $100,000/yr, will see through it.