child support in NJ
OCEANBLU37
My stbx and I are divorcing soon and I need to know if the courts will honor my
wishes to receive no child support. We share our son 50/50 and I do not want
my ex to be ordered to pay because I make somewhat less than him. Does anyone
know how NJ handles this?
Sharyn
Check this out Greg, there is a female cp that doesn't want anything in
return...
Hmmmm. They do exist. ;-)
Sharyn
OCEANBLU37 wrote in message
<199804081957...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
GJP
There are in fact allot of them out there....but you tend to get the ones here
who want the money....and alimony as CS. A large percentage of women who do not
have a child support order do so because they distrust government, they get
support from the father without an order, they get support from the father while
receiving welfare and thus maximize the benefit to the child and not the state,
and certain communities have expectations of support that is not cash payments
mandated by government. It is the ones who use their children to get money and
lifestyle support, the ones who were not getting alimony after divorce in the
1980s, that screamed the loudest and provided the excuse to pass legislation
that backed major increases in CS. In effect they found a way to get that
alimony by holding the children in front of themselves as they whined...pooooor
meeeeee....errrrr.....my poooooorrr childddd. I am well aware of who the enemy
is and who the beneficiaries are....and the list does not include children.
Unfortunately with the aid of the whiners, there is a government push to get
orders for every child...that grows the bureaucracy and the private companies
that parasitize people to make their living. We are not talking pocket change
either.
Greg Palumbo
Barb
On 8 Apr 1998 19:57:26 GMT, ocean...@aol.com (OCEANBLU37) wrote:
>My stbx and I are divorcing soon and I need to know if the courts will honor my
>wishes to receive no child support. We share our son 50/50 and I do not want
>my ex to be ordered to pay because I make somewhat less than him. Does anyone
>know how NJ handles this?
I dont know about NJ but you just might end up having to do just
that. Its sad isnt it.....when someone wants to do the RIGHT thing,
the govt steps in and wont let them. (sigh)
Barb
OCEANBLU37
There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it. It
sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
hate to see your money go to you ex-wife. Unfortunatily most single mothers
are living at poverty level, it's still a mans world and most women don't get
nearly the pay they should. By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
there is not much left if any. And there are so many fathers who deny their
responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers when
in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
There are always going to be people who abuse the system. I know quite a few
men who are on disability dishonestly , does that make it ok for me to say all
men are lazy and don't want to earn a honest days pay. All people are
individauls, some are honest, some not. You need to let go of this enemy
stuff, life is to short, let go of it and move on. Yes I am fortunate that I
make enough money to make ends meet and my sons father is more than willing to
see that his child is provided for. I have total trust that his love for his
son overshadows any problems we may have had. How can you say children are not
benefitting from child support?
Phil
OCEANBLU37 wrote:
>
> There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
> majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
>It sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
> hate to see your money go to you ex-wife.
In my case, both. I would much rather the money went to my son.
> Unfortunatily most single mothers
> are living at poverty level,
Most???? I doubt the facts would back up your statement. Some of those
that are, choose to do so.
>it's still a mans world and most women don't get
> nearly the pay they should.
Why? Because they choose not to work, live off welfare and C$; work at
minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
of their own children?
>By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
> there is not much left if any.
There should be little excess left over. Any left over is hidden
alimony. How many fathers would love to serve as daycare but are not
allowed by the mother?
Both parents should be responsible for it, not just the fathers.
> And there are so many fathers who deny their
> responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers when
> in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
A majority of mothers DO get the support they truly need and then some,
which is called "back-door alimony".
> There are always going to be people who abuse the system.
It is the system itself that is abusive.
>I know quite a few
> men who are on disability dishonestly , does that make it ok for me to say all
> men are lazy and don't want to earn a honest days pay. All people are
> individauls, some are honest, some not. You need to let go of this enemy
> stuff, life is to short, let go of it and move on. Yes I am fortunate that I
> make enough money to make ends meet and my sons father is more than willing to
> see that his child is provided for. I have total trust that his love for his
> son overshadows any problems we may have had. How can you say children are not
> benefitting from child support?
There is an enemy and it is the system that punishes a man because he is
not the mother. It also includes those that use the system as a form of
punishment and/or income or for the power it gives.
It does not include all CPs.
My child is benefitting from C$, but hardly at the same rate I pay;
mostly, his mother benefits from it.
Either the system is good and works well, meaning that a great majority
of children are supported by both parents (and this is more than just
money), or it is broken and needs to be removed. I know which side of
this argument I stand on since there are too many children, not mothers,
not receiving support; too many fathers not able to see his children;
too much money used by the system to support itself.
You may choose one or the other, not both, not neither.
--
Phil
(Note: spam send to my email address will be reported to all postmasters
and ISPs involved with a letter of complaint)
Leslie
In article <199804081957...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ocean...@aol.com (OCEANBLU37) wrote:
> My stbx and I are divorcing soon and I need to know if the courts will
honor my
> wishes to receive no child support. We share our son 50/50 and I do not want
> my ex to be ordered to pay because I make somewhat less than him. Does anyone
> know how NJ handles this?
I would think that they would honor your request, but I'm not sure. If
they don't and do award a CS order, you can always just pay your ex that
same amount. The courts don't need to know about it.
Good luck.
Leslie
--
*****************************************
Char McCarty
OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
> majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it. It
> sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
> hate to see your money go to you ex-wife. Unfortunatily most single mothers
> are living at poverty level, it's still a mans world and most women don't get
> nearly the pay they should. By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
> there is not much left if any. And there are so many fathers who deny their
> responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers when
> in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
> There are always going to be people who abuse the system. I know quite a few
> men who are on disability dishonestly , does that make it ok for me to say all
> men are lazy and don't want to earn a honest days pay. All people are
> individauls, some are honest, some not. You need to let go of this enemy
> stuff, life is to short, let go of it and move on. Yes I am fortunate that I
> make enough money to make ends meet and my sons father is more than willing to
> see that his child is provided for. I have total trust that his love for his
> son overshadows any problems we may have had. How can you say children are not
> benefitting from child support?
Amen! Well said!
Char McCarty
Phil wrote:
> OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> >
> > There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
> > majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
>
> C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
>
> >It sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
> > hate to see your money go to you ex-wife.
>
> In my case, both. I would much rather the money went to my son.
>
> > Unfortunatily most single mothers
> > are living at poverty level,
>
> Most???? I doubt the facts would back up your statement. Some of those
> that are, choose to do so.
>
> >it's still a mans world and most women don't get
> > nearly the pay they should.
>
> Why? Because they choose not to work, live off welfare and C$; work at
> minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
> of their own children?
>
I haven't worked a minimum wage job since high school and I'm not collecting
welfare. I "choose" to work. But the same job I do pays less than if a man did it.
Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls, women do
"not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
> >By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
> > there is not much left if any.
>
> There should be little excess left over. Any left over is hidden
> alimony. How many fathers would love to serve as daycare but are not
> allowed by the mother?
> Both parents should be responsible for it, not just the fathers.
>
Right. There shouldn't be extra CS, but if the CS is not even enough to cover half
of daycare, clothing and medical for a child, then is that fair either?
> > And there are so many fathers who deny their
> > responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers when
> > in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
>
> A majority of mothers DO get the support they truly need and then some,
> which is called "back-door alimony".
>
And the "minority" that doesn't?
> > There are always going to be people who abuse the system.
>
> It is the system itself that is abusive.
>
> >I know quite a few
> > men who are on disability dishonestly , does that make it ok for me to say all
> > men are lazy and don't want to earn a honest days pay. All people are
> > individauls, some are honest, some not. You need to let go of this enemy
> > stuff, life is to short, let go of it and move on. Yes I am fortunate that I
> > make enough money to make ends meet and my sons father is more than willing to
> > see that his child is provided for. I have total trust that his love for his
> > son overshadows any problems we may have had. How can you say children are not
> > benefitting from child support?
>
Pat Winstanley
In article <352d12c...@enews.newsguy.com>, Fernandinande Le Mur
<NoE...@newsguy.com> writes
>On 8 Apr 1998 23:13:38 GMT, ocean...@aol.com (OCEANBLU37) expounded:
>
>->There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
>the
>->majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it. It
>
>No women are entitled to any 'CS' unless they're first offered the
>father joint or full custody, a rare occurance.
How do you know whether or not the father has had the opportunity for
full, or joint custody...but turned it down?
And are you saying that if the man turns down full or joint custody he
should be helping to support his child financially, but not helping to
support the child financially if he isn't offered it in the first place
(even if he would have turned it down if it had been offered)?
--
Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley
In article <352C34...@bigfoot.com>, Phil <Phil...@bigfoot.com>
writes
>OCEANBLU37 wrote:
>>
>> There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
>the
>
>the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
>
Indeed... how many mothers don't spend the CS received from the father
*plus* their own share... ON THE KIDS?
Your ex is an exception, Phil, I feel, if she spend the child's money on
herself rather than the child. Most women don't have the choice... by
the time they have dealt with the kids needs from their own resources
and from the father's contribution, there is nothing left over to spend
on anyone else!
>>It sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
>> hate to see your money go to you ex-wife.
>
>In my case, both. I would much rather the money went to my son.
>
As I say... sounds like your situation is the exception. Should we treat
it the way many NCPs seem to feel the CPs in this newsgroup (who are
also exceptions) are treated? Not typical so you don't exist?
>> Unfortunatily most single mothers
>> are living at poverty level,
>
>Most???? I doubt the facts would back up your statement. Some of those
>that are, choose to do so.
>
And most of those that are do NOT choose to do so!
>>it's still a mans world and most women don't get
>> nearly the pay they should.
>
>Why? Because they choose not to work, live off welfare and C$; work at
>minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
>of their own children?
>
If a parent has a relatively low paid full time job (not minimum but
about halfway between minimum and average wage), and they pay for
childcare for a couple of kids out of their net pay, how much is their
effective net pay?
>>By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
>> there is not much left if any.
>
>There should be little excess left over. Any left over is hidden
>alimony.
What... out of the wage the CP earns?????
You jest, surely! Or do you mean it's hidden alimony heading towards the
NCP?
> How many fathers would love to serve as daycare but are not
>allowed by the mother?
Lots.
How many fathers would hate to serve as the daycare even though the
mothers want them to? More lots!
>Both parents should be responsible for it, not just the fathers.
>
Yes - half each as a basic measure... for all the hours - not just the
hours the CP spends commuting and earning.
>> And there are so many fathers who deny their
>> responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers
>when
>> in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
>
>A majority of mothers DO get the support they truly need and then some,
>which is called "back-door alimony".
>
No - a minority get alimony. Most just get enought ot help supplement
their own income needed to see to the kids.
>> There are always going to be people who abuse the system.
>
>It is the system itself that is abusive.
>
Only for exceptions like yourself.
>>I know quite a few
>> men who are on disability dishonestly , does that make it ok for me to say all
>> men are lazy and don't want to earn a honest days pay. All people are
>> individauls, some are honest, some not. You need to let go of this enemy
>> stuff, life is to short, let go of it and move on. Yes I am fortunate that I
>> make enough money to make ends meet and my sons father is more than willing to
>> see that his child is provided for. I have total trust that his love for his
>> son overshadows any problems we may have had. How can you say children are
>not
>> benefitting from child support?
>
>There is an enemy and it is the system that punishes a man because he is
>not the mother.
Mothers are punished too. What makes you think they aren't?
> It also includes those that use the system as a form of
>punishment and/or income or for the power it gives.
>It does not include all CPs.
>My child is benefitting from C$, but hardly at the same rate I pay;
>mostly, his mother benefits from it.
>
As I say - you are an exception.
>Either the system is good and works well, meaning that a great majority
>of children are supported by both parents (and this is more than just
>money), or it is broken and needs to be removed. I know which side of
>this argument I stand on since there are too many children, not mothers,
>not receiving support; too many fathers not able to see his children;
>too much money used by the system to support itself.
>You may choose one or the other, not both, not neither.
>
And too many children not receiving sufficient support from fathers, and
too many mothers having to go without themselves because *they* are
providing the father's share of the support form their (the mother's)
resources. What shall we do about that?
Any suggestions?
Patrick Roberts
Let me ask you this. Do you think the only way a parent can support their chidren
financially is via child support payments? I have joint custody but I pay no
child support. Are you saying that I don't support my child financially? I got
news for you, I buy whatever my daughter needs when she needs it. The only time
her mom and I talk about money is when we are going to share the cost of something
(e.g., girl scout trip, birthday party, etc..). This shows another blaring
problem with todays ignorant society in that they look at child support money as
the ONLY money a parent is spending on the child. If people bothered to put a
little more brain power behind analyzing a situation they would see the truth.
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <352d12c...@enews.newsguy.com>, Fernandinande Le Mur
> <NoE...@newsguy.com> writes
> >On 8 Apr 1998 23:13:38 GMT, ocean...@aol.com (OCEANBLU37) expounded:
> >
> >->There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
> >the
> >->majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it. It
> >
> >No women are entitled to any 'CS' unless they're first offered the
> >father joint or full custody, a rare occurance.
>
> How do you know whether or not the father has had the opportunity for
> full, or joint custody...but turned it down?
>
> And are you saying that if the man turns down full or joint custody he
> should be helping to support his child financially, but not helping to
> support the child financially if he isn't offered it in the first place
> (even if he would have turned it down if it had been offered)?
>
GJP
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> Phil wrote:
>
> > OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > >
> > > There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
> >
> > the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> >
> > > hate to see your money go to you ex-wife.
> >
> > In my case, both. I would much rather the money went to my son.
> >
> > > are living at poverty level,
> >
> > Most???? I doubt the facts would back up your statement. Some of those
> > that are, choose to do so.
> >
> > > nearly the pay they should.
> >
> > Why? Because they choose not to work, live off welfare and C$; work at
> > minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
> > of their own children?
> >
>
> welfare. I "choose" to work. But the same job I do pays less than if a man did it.
> Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls, women do
> "not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
What a bunch of crap. You choose your profession and how hard you work. Real
surveys find women who do the same work with the same experience and same
education get paid the same. What you are promoting is equity where no matter
what you do you are entitled to equal pay. Go find a communist country if this
is what you want.
Greg Palumbo
GJP
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> OCEANBLU37 wrote:
>
> > There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
> > sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
> > are living at poverty level, it's still a mans world and most women don't get
> > nearly the pay they should. By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
> > there is not much left if any. And there are so many fathers who deny their
> > responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers when
> > in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
> > men who are on disability dishonestly , does that make it ok for me to say all
> > men are lazy and don't want to earn a honest days pay. All people are
> > individauls, some are honest, some not. You need to let go of this enemy
> > stuff, life is to short, let go of it and move on. Yes I am fortunate that I
> > make enough money to make ends meet and my sons father is more than willing to
> > see that his child is provided for. I have total trust that his love for his
> > son overshadows any problems we may have had. How can you say children are not
> > benefitting from child support?
>
What I would expect from someone who hasn't examined the numbers or reality. Men
and society pay for women's choices. We are sacrificing our children in order to
let women make these choices, and we have parasitic industries and a bureaucracy
that are more than willing to allow women do this cause it provides them cash.
Greg Palumbo
GJP
More from Pattyland. Once again bemoaning the fact some women pay for their
choices. The majority do not and that is a fact.
Greg Palumbo
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> In article <352C34...@bigfoot.com>, Phil <Phil...@bigfoot.com>
> writes
> >OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> >>
> >> There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
> >the
> >> majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> >
> >C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> >the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> >
>
snip the pattyland stuff
Rick Westerman
I'll agree with Barb on this: you may be forced to accept CS. Of
course there is nothing that says you can't simply turn around and give
it back to your soon-to-be-ex. And then he would send it in again next
month, you give it back, and so on. It does put a chunk of change out
of circulation but it circumvents the court.
But first try to get the NJ courts to lower or abate child support. It
does (or did, in my case) work in Indiana.
And certainly try to keep both parents active in the child's life if
both adults wish to be active (IMHO, one can not nor should not force an
adult try to be parent; it just hurts both the child(ren) and the
parents). I know my children have been helped a lot by having both
parents active in their lives.
-- Rick
Rick Westerman System Manager of the Ag Campus Lab. for
wes...@purdue.edu Computational Biology (ACLCB) & Sys. Mgr.
Phone: (317) 494-0505 of the Biochemistry department BCHM bldg.
FAX: (317) 494-7897 Purdue Univ. W. Lafayette, IN 47907
href="http://www.biochem.purdue.edu/~westerm"
Char McCarty
GJP wrote:
> Char McCarty wrote:
> >
> > Phil wrote:
> >
> > > OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
> > > > majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> > >
> > > C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> > > the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> > >
> > > >It sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
> > > > hate to see your money go to you ex-wife.
> > >
> > > In my case, both. I would much rather the money went to my son.
> > >
> > > > Unfortunatily most single mothers
> > > > are living at poverty level,
> > >
> > > Most???? I doubt the facts would back up your statement. Some of those
> > > that are, choose to do so.
> > >
> > > >it's still a mans world and most women don't get
> > > > nearly the pay they should.
> > >
> > > Why? Because they choose not to work, live off welfare and C$; work at
> > > minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
> > > of their own children?
> > >
> >
> > I haven't worked a minimum wage job since high school and I'm not collecting
> > welfare. I "choose" to work. But the same job I do pays less than if a man did it.
> > Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls, women do
> > "not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
>
> What a bunch of crap. You choose your profession and how hard you work. Real
> surveys find women who do the same work with the same experience and same
> education get paid the same.
And which surveys would those be?
Char McCarty
GJP wrote:
> More from Pattyland. Once again bemoaning the fact some women pay for their
> choices. The majority do not and that is a fact.
>
No one said the majority does, but you seem to want to "ignore" the fact that the
minority that does has been treated as if they don't exist by you. The current laws
aren't fair to men, but you would rather see them not fair to women simply to make
up for all the years you've suffered, rather than see them equal.
> Greg Palumbo
>
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
> >
> > In article <352C34...@bigfoot.com>, Phil <Phil...@bigfoot.com>
> > writes
> > >OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
> > >the
> > >> majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> > >
> > >C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> > >the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> > >
> >
>
> snip the pattyland stuff
Char McCarty
Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 00:37:02 -0400, Char McCarty <almost...@geocities.com>
> expounded:
>
> ->
> ->
> ->Phil wrote:
> ->
> ->> OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> ->> >
> ->> > There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support
> and the
> ->> > majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> ->>
> ->> C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> ->> the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> ->>
> ->> >It sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry
> and
> ->> > hate to see your money go to you ex-wife.
> ->>
> ->> In my case, both. I would much rather the money went to my son.
> ->>
> ->> > Unfortunatily most single mothers
> ->> > are living at poverty level,
> ->>
> ->> Most???? I doubt the facts would back up your statement. Some of those
> ->> that are, choose to do so.
> ->>
> ->> >it's still a mans world and most women don't get
> ->> > nearly the pay they should.
> ->>
> ->> Why? Because they choose not to work, live off welfare and C$; work at
> ->> minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
> ->> of their own children?
> ->>
> ->
> ->I haven't worked a minimum wage job since high school and I'm not collecting
> ->welfare. I "choose" to work. But the same job I do pays less than if a man
> did it.
>
> "IF" a man did it implies that men aren't doing it - correct? If so,
> what you say is merely speculation. Accurately done polls show that
> women earn the same income as men when they do the same job with the
> same background and experience. Women tend to make less because of their
> own choices: spotty work history, poor training (majored in "Art History"
> rather than engineering), pick jobs that are clean and physically safe,
> etc. (90% of the people killed on the job are men)
>
Actually, I'm going from experience. I've seen men in my position with less
education and skills than myself, earning more than I myself. Take for instance the
63 year old man I worked with who fell asleep in his office daily. :-)
Oh, of course he was also an ex-con who had received his training in prison. We
were office workers with the same job title. I typed 85+ wpm...he typed about 40.
I knew a bit of programming...he locked up his computer whenever he tried to mess
with it, then I was called in to fix it. You see...we weren't equal...I had the
skills...he didn't. Why then was he paid more?
Well for one, the manager was a woman hater (Greg would fit in nicely). It took 3
years before I was given a raise above that of my co-worker, and simply put, it took
the hiring of a new manager to realize I was not being paid for my abilities, but on
the fact that I was a woman.
> ->Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls, women
> do
> ->"not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
> ->
>
> That's not a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination.
Beg to differ but it IS a fact. :-)
Phil
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> Phil wrote:
>
> > OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > are living at poverty level,
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I haven't worked a minimum wage job since high school and I'm not collecting
I keep hearing this. I see no proof in my daily life. I don't know for a
fact that it does not exist but I don't see it. If I were a woman that
worked at a job where I could prove your allegation, I would have them
in court tomorrow, or at least talk to the employment commission about
it.
When faced with the facts, I'll acknowledge them; when faced with a
statement, I will judge by my experience.
>
> > >By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
> > > there is not much left if any.
> >
> > There should be little excess left over. Any left over is hidden
> > alimony. How many fathers would love to serve as daycare but are not
> > allowed by the mother?
> > Both parents should be responsible for it, not just the fathers.
> >
>
> Right. There shouldn't be extra CS, but if the CS is not even enough to cover half
> of daycare, clothing and medical for a child, then is that fair either?
Depends on several factors. One can easily live far above one's means,
make bad choices.
Who is to blame for improper spending?
As it is, there are no safeguards that the children will receive the C$,
the CP makes the decisions about what is needed and uses the NCPs money
without any input about the necessity of the spending. This not only is
not fair, it is not right.
>
> > > And there are so many fathers who deny their
> > > responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers when
> > > in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
> >
> > A majority of mothers DO get the support they truly need and then some,
> > which is called "back-door alimony".
> >
>
> And the "minority" that doesn't?
Exactly, which is my point below that the system is not just improper,
it's broken and beyond repair.
>
> > > There are always going to be people who abuse the system.
> >
> > It is the system itself that is abusive.
> >
> > >I know quite a few
> > > men who are on disability dishonestly , does that make it ok for me to say all
> > > men are lazy and don't want to earn a honest days pay. All people are
> > > individauls, some are honest, some not. You need to let go of this enemy
> > > stuff, life is to short, let go of it and move on. Yes I am fortunate that I
> > > make enough money to make ends meet and my sons father is more than willing to
> > > see that his child is provided for. I have total trust that his love for his
> > > son overshadows any problems we may have had. How can you say children are not
> > > benefitting from child support?
> >
> > There is an enemy and it is the system that punishes a man because he is
> > not the mother. It also includes those that use the system as a form of
> > punishment and/or income or for the power it gives.
> > It does not include all CPs.
> > My child is benefitting from C$, but hardly at the same rate I pay;
> > mostly, his mother benefits from it.
> >
> > Either the system is good and works well, meaning that a great majority
> > of children are supported by both parents (and this is more than just
> > money), or it is broken and needs to be removed. I know which side of
> > this argument I stand on since there are too many children, not mothers,
> > not receiving support; too many fathers not able to see his children;
> > too much money used by the system to support itself.
> > You may choose one or the other, not both, not neither.
> >
Phil
> >the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> >
>
> Indeed... how many mothers don't spend the CS received from the father
> *plus* their own share... ON THE KIDS?
Far, far too many. One is too many. Since there is no accounting for the
money, we will never know.
>
> Your ex is an exception, Phil, I feel, if she spend the child's money on
> herself rather than the child. Most women don't have the choice... by
> the time they have dealt with the kids needs from their own resources
> and from the father's contribution, there is nothing left over to spend
> on anyone else!
Most women DO have the choice. The fact that most of the posters here
(and undoubtedly others) don't have that choice only points out the fact
that the system is beyond hope.
>
> >
> >In my case, both. I would much rather the money went to my son.
> >
>
> As I say... sounds like your situation is the exception. Should we treat
> it the way many NCPs seem to feel the CPs in this newsgroup (who are
> also exceptions) are treated? Not typical so you don't exist?
>
Even if I was the exception, why is it allowed. The courts, her
attorney, my attorney, she and I all know it. There is nothing that can
be done. And we're not talking about my rights nor hers. We are talking
about her using money intended for a child. At least, unethical, at
worst, criminal.
It is not as rare as you imply. It is very common. Without
accountability, a built in reward is created.
As to the CPs in this NG, sure they exist; in fact, they are one of the
glaring examples of the stupidity of the system.
> >
> >Most???? I doubt the facts would back up your statement. Some of those
> >that are, choose to do so.
> >
>
> And most of those that are do NOT choose to do so!
>
> >
> >Why? Because they choose not to work, live off welfare and C$; work at
> >minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
> >of their own children?
> >
>
> If a parent has a relatively low paid full time job (not minimum but
> about halfway between minimum and average wage), and they pay for
> childcare for a couple of kids out of their net pay, how much is their
> effective net pay?
>
Am I missing something here? Net is what, if any, you have after. But,
don't forget, the CP is the only one of the parents that can take a
lower paying job.
> >
> >There should be little excess left over. Any left over is hidden
> >alimony.
>
> What... out of the wage the CP earns?????
No C$.
>
> You jest, surely! Or do you mean it's hidden alimony heading towards the
> NCP?
Any money not spent on the children in some way is hidden alimony. Money
not actually used for C$ should be put into an account for
emergencies/education, never used by the CP for personal use.
>
> > How many fathers would love to serve as daycare but are not
> >allowed by the mother?
>
> Lots.
>
> How many fathers would hate to serve as the daycare even though the
> mothers want them to? More lots!
>
> >Both parents should be responsible for it, not just the fathers.
> >
>
> Yes - half each as a basic measure... for all the hours - not just the
> hours the CP spends commuting and earning.
>
Now we are talking about both parents being equally, or nearly so,
involved with the day to day care and support (more than money) of the
children. True, factual, total joint custody.
> >A majority of mothers DO get the support they truly need and then some,
> >which is called "back-door alimony".
> >
>
> No - a minority get alimony. Most just get enought ot help supplement
> their own income needed to see to the kids.
I don't think so. With the 'awards' being far above what is necessary,
too many CPs are just living at a higher rate than they are capable of
earning.
There is simply too much latitude for, and allowances of, abuse of the
situation.
>
> >It is the system itself that is abusive.
> >
>
> Only for exceptions like yourself.
No, for Cici, Tracy, Jean, Greg, Leonard and others as well. It abuses
all the children by removing one parent for no other reason than their
sex. It allows some NCPs to not pay C$ while at the same time forcing
other NCPs to support their ex in the name of the children who may, or
may not see the use of the money.
I don't fault the ones that abuse the system near as much as I do the
system that not only allows it, but insists upon it.
>
> >
> >There is an enemy and it is the system that punishes a man because he is
> >not the mother.
>
> Mothers are punished too. What makes you think they aren't?
Some are, indeed. That is why the system is wrong. But the fathers are
almost *always* punished first, formost and without recourse (without
tons of money). It is not working for the interests of the children.
>
> > It also includes those that use the system as a form of
> >punishment and/or income or for the power it gives.
> >It does not include all CPs.
> >My child is benefitting from C$, but hardly at the same rate I pay;
> >mostly, his mother benefits from it.
> >
>
> As I say - you are an exception.
No, I'm not. That's the problem. If my ex had to account for even half
the C$, she couldn't do it, simply because she does not spend the C$ on
the child, and the courts could not care less. It's not about the best
interests of the children at all.
>
> >Either the system is good and works well, meaning that a great majority
> >of children are supported by both parents (and this is more than just
> >money), or it is broken and needs to be removed. I know which side of
> >this argument I stand on since there are too many children, not mothers,
> >not receiving support; too many fathers not able to see his children;
> >too much money used by the system to support itself.
> >You may choose one or the other, not both, not neither.
> >
>
> And too many children not receiving sufficient support from fathers, and
> too many mothers having to go without themselves because *they* are
> providing the father's share of the support form their (the mother's)
> resources. What shall we do about that?
Agreed, one is too many. See below.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
We begin by scrapping the system that forces a person from their home,
removes their children from them and creates a debt without their
permission based on arbitrary figures without facts. How could we not do
better for the children and BOTH parents?
It is such a mess, it's beyond repair.
> --
> Pat Winstanley
> http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk
--
Pat Winstanley
In article <352CBD7A...@prism.gatech.edu>, Patrick Roberts
<gt0...@prism.gatech.edu> writes
>
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>> In article <352d12c...@enews.newsguy.com>, Fernandinande Le Mur
>> <NoE...@newsguy.com> writes
>> >On 8 Apr 1998 23:13:38 GMT, ocean...@aol.com (OCEANBLU37) expounded:
>> >
>> >the
>> >->majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it. It
>> >
>> >No women are entitled to any 'CS' unless they're first offered the
>> >father joint or full custody, a rare occurance.
>>
>> How do you know whether or not the father has had the opportunity for
>> full, or joint custody...but turned it down?
>>
>> And are you saying that if the man turns down full or joint custody he
>> should be helping to support his child financially, but not helping to
>> support the child financially if he isn't offered it in the first place
>> (even if he would have turned it down if it had been offered)?
>Let me ask you this. Do you think the only way a parent can support their
>chidren
>financially is via child support payments?
Not at all... and I never suggested it was!
> I have joint custody but I pay no
>child support. Are you saying that I don't support my child financially?
Not at all. I was tackling Le Mur who seemed to suggest that should be
the case!
> I got
>news for you, I buy whatever my daughter needs when she needs it. The only time
>her mom and I talk about money is when we are going to share the cost of
>something
>(e.g., girl scout trip, birthday party, etc..).
Good. Sounds like it works well. What about parents who cannot agree on
JC - either one wants the other to do most of the direct care and
spending (from their own resources) or one wants the other to provide
resources but not spend time with the child?
> This shows another blaring
>problem with todays ignorant society in that they look at child support money as
>the ONLY money a parent is spending on the child.
Perhaps society does. I don't. I see exactly the fact that whoever is
caring for the child at the time will be spending money upon that child
directly. It's when the child spends very unequal portion of time with
one parent or the other that there often needs to be a cash flow
following the child. As long as both are providing about half of what
the child needs - in either cash or kind or a mixture of the two in some
proportion, then it's fair. What isn't fair is if Mum or Dad is doing
90% of the care and providing 90% of the finance *as well*!
> If people bothered to put a
>little more brain power behind analyzing a situation they would see the truth.
Which truth do you think I missed?
GJP
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> GJP wrote:
>
> > More from Pattyland. Once again bemoaning the fact some women pay for their
> > choices. The majority do not and that is a fact.
> >
>
> No one said the majority does, but you seem to want to "ignore" the fact that the
> minority that does has been treated as if they don't exist by you. The current laws
> aren't fair to men, but you would rather see them not fair to women simply to make
> up for all the years you've suffered, rather than see them equal.
Actually I keep my eye on the ball......the kids and two parents, mother and
father, not one or the other, not exceptions, not the benefits to industries and
government or one sex.
Nice try to paint me however. Missed;-)
Greg Palumbo
>
> > Greg Palumbo
> >
> > Pat Winstanley wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <352C34...@bigfoot.com>, Phil <Phil...@bigfoot.com>
> > > writes
> > > >OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
> > > >the
> > > >> majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> > > >
> > > >C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> > > >the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > snip the pattyland stuff
Char McCarty
Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:57:31 -0400, Char McCarty <almost...@geocities.com>
> expounded:
>
> ->
> ->
> ->Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
> ->
>
> ->> "IF" a man did it implies that men aren't doing it - correct? If so,
> ->> what you say is merely speculation. Accurately done polls show that
> ->> women earn the same income as men when they do the same job with the
> ->> same background and experience. Women tend to make less because of their
> ->> own choices: spotty work history, poor training (majored in "Art History"
> ->> rather than engineering), pick jobs that are clean and physically safe,
> ->> etc. (90% of the people killed on the job are men)
> ->>
> ->
> ->Actually, I'm going from experience. I've seen men in my position with less
> ->education and skills than myself, earning more than I myself. Take for
> instance the
> ->63 year old man I worked with who fell asleep in his office daily. :-)
> ->
> ->Oh, of course he was also an ex-con who had received his training in prison.
> We
> ->were office workers with the same job title. I typed 85+ wpm...he typed about
> 40.
> ->I knew a bit of programming...he locked up his computer whenever he tried to
> mess
> ->with it, then I was called in to fix it. You see...we weren't equal...I had
> the
> ->skills...he didn't. Why then was he paid more?
> ->
> ->Well for one, the manager was a woman hater (Greg would fit in nicely). It
> took 3
> ->years before I was given a raise above that of my co-worker, and simply put,
>
> And then you were earning more than he was: QED.
>
> it took
> ->the hiring of a new manager to realize I was not being paid for my abilities,
> but on
> ->the fact that I was a woman.
> ->
> ->> ->Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls,
> women
> ->> do
> ->> ->"not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
> ->> ->
> ->>
> ->> That's not a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination.
> ->
> -> Beg to differ but it IS a fact. :-)
>
> Women tend to earn less because of their personal choices.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that I had no personal choice as to the manager's
decision. The fact that he was a bad manager was finally proven at which point he
was promptly removed and replaced with one that did a more effective job.
Whereupon, I was promptly raised to the salary that I should have been previously
earning. I didn't make any other choices 3 years later as I had 3 years before.
Considering the fact that I was "always" 30 minutes early to work, and normally
stayed 1 hour past quitting time of my own choice and the man in question, normally
was 15 minutes late and left 15 minutes early...also considering that my work
produced was greater than his as shown in weekly reports, tell me what choices I
made that affected my pay being so low for the first three years.
Char McCarty
Phil wrote:
> Char McCarty wrote:
> >
> > Phil wrote:
> >
> > > OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
> > > > majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> > >
> > > C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> > > the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> > >
> > > >It sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
> > > > hate to see your money go to you ex-wife.
> > >
> > > In my case, both. I would much rather the money went to my son.
> > >
> > > > Unfortunatily most single mothers
> > > > are living at poverty level,
> > >
> > > Most???? I doubt the facts would back up your statement. Some of those
> > > that are, choose to do so.
> > >
> > > >it's still a mans world and most women don't get
> > > > nearly the pay they should.
> > >
> > > Why? Because they choose not to work, live off welfare and C$; work at
> > > minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
> > > of their own children?
> > >
> >
> > I haven't worked a minimum wage job since high school and I'm not collecting
> > welfare. I "choose" to work. But the same job I do pays less than if a man did it.
> > Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls, women do
> > "not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
>
> I keep hearing this. I see no proof in my daily life. I don't know for a
> fact that it does not exist but I don't see it. If I were a woman that
> worked at a job where I could prove your allegation, I would have them
> in court tomorrow, or at least talk to the employment commission about
> it.
> When faced with the facts, I'll acknowledge them; when faced with a
> statement, I will judge by my experience.
> >
Precisely...as I am also judging by my own personal experiences.
> > > >By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
> > > > there is not much left if any.
> > >
> > > There should be little excess left over. Any left over is hidden
> > > alimony. How many fathers would love to serve as daycare but are not
> > > allowed by the mother?
> > > Both parents should be responsible for it, not just the fathers.
> > >
> >
> > Right. There shouldn't be extra CS, but if the CS is not even enough to cover half
> > of daycare, clothing and medical for a child, then is that fair either?
>
> Depends on several factors. One can easily live far above one's means,
> make bad choices.
> Who is to blame for improper spending?
> As it is, there are no safeguards that the children will receive the C$,
> the CP makes the decisions about what is needed and uses the NCPs money
> without any input about the necessity of the spending. This not only is
> not fair, it is not right.
> >
> > > > And there are so many fathers who deny their
> > > > responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers when
> > > > in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
> > >
> > > A majority of mothers DO get the support they truly need and then some,
> > > which is called "back-door alimony".
> > >
> >
> > And the "minority" that doesn't?
>
> Exactly, which is my point below that the system is not just improper,
> it's broken and beyond repair.
> >
> > > > There are always going to be people who abuse the system.
> > >
> > > It is the system itself that is abusive.
> > >
> > > >I know quite a few
> > > > men who are on disability dishonestly , does that make it ok for me to say all
> > > > men are lazy and don't want to earn a honest days pay. All people are
> > > > individauls, some are honest, some not. You need to let go of this enemy
> > > > stuff, life is to short, let go of it and move on. Yes I am fortunate that I
> > > > make enough money to make ends meet and my sons father is more than willing to
> > > > see that his child is provided for. I have total trust that his love for his
> > > > son overshadows any problems we may have had. How can you say children are not
> > > > benefitting from child support?
> > >
> > > There is an enemy and it is the system that punishes a man because he is
> > > not the mother. It also includes those that use the system as a form of
> > > punishment and/or income or for the power it gives.
> > > It does not include all CPs.
> > > My child is benefitting from C$, but hardly at the same rate I pay;
> > > mostly, his mother benefits from it.
> > >
> > > Either the system is good and works well, meaning that a great majority
> > > of children are supported by both parents (and this is more than just
> > > money), or it is broken and needs to be removed. I know which side of
> > > this argument I stand on since there are too many children, not mothers,
> > > not receiving support; too many fathers not able to see his children;
> > > too much money used by the system to support itself.
> > > You may choose one or the other, not both, not neither.
Char McCarty
GJP wrote:
> Char McCarty wrote:
> >
> > GJP wrote:
> >
> > > More from Pattyland. Once again bemoaning the fact some women pay for their
> > > choices. The majority do not and that is a fact.
> > >
> >
> > No one said the majority does, but you seem to want to "ignore" the fact that the
> > minority that does has been treated as if they don't exist by you. The current laws
> > aren't fair to men, but you would rather see them not fair to women simply to make
> > up for all the years you've suffered, rather than see them equal.
>
> Actually I keep my eye on the ball......the kids and two parents, mother and
> father, not one or the other, not exceptions, not the benefits to industries and
> government or one sex.
>
> Nice try to paint me however. Missed;-)
>
> Greg Palumbo
>
Oh but poor Greg, I didn't miss...I hit the nail on the head. Anyone reading your
previous posts can see that practically every remark you have made is totally and
ignorantly against "all" women. If you can provide one posting in which you even remotely
acknowledged that a man might actually, at one point, have wronged a woman, then I could
possibly concede that you are not the woman hater you have made yourself out to be. :-)
> >
> > > Greg Palumbo
> > >
> > > Pat Winstanley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <352C34...@bigfoot.com>, Phil <Phil...@bigfoot.com>
> > > > writes
> > > > >OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
> > > > >the
> > > > >> majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> > > > >
> > > > >C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> > > > >the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > snip the pattyland stuff
Pat Winstanley
In article <352CE4...@earthlink.net>, Phil <ppe...@earthlink.net>
writes
>> And too many children not receiving sufficient support from fathers, and
>> too many mothers having to go without themselves because *they* are
>> providing the father's share of the support form their (the mother's)
>> resources. What shall we do about that?
>
>Agreed, one is too many. See below.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>We begin by scrapping the system that forces a person from their home,
>removes their children from them and creates a debt without their
>permission based on arbitrary figures without facts. How could we not do
>better for the children and BOTH parents?
>It is such a mess, it's beyond repair.
Ok... scrap it. What, exactly, would you replace it with so that some
CPs don't get to live it up on their ex's money, and some CPs don't have
to support their exs?
How would you do it for the many couples for whom JC simply wouldn't be
fairly workable... people like you... and people like me... people who
don't fit into the nice neat pigeonholes of *normal* situation?
How would you make sure unfairness was abolished at the extremes, yet
not mess about with those who can work together fairly with their ex
partner?
How?
GJP
Must be true for everyone then.....Hahahahahahahaaha!!!
Greg Palumbo
> > ->> ->Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls,
> > women
GJP
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> GJP wrote:
>
> > Char McCarty wrote:
> > >
> > > GJP wrote:
> > >
> > > > More from Pattyland. Once again bemoaning the fact some women pay for their
> > > > choices. The majority do not and that is a fact.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No one said the majority does, but you seem to want to "ignore" the fact that the
> > > minority that does has been treated as if they don't exist by you. The current laws
> > > aren't fair to men, but you would rather see them not fair to women simply to make
> > > up for all the years you've suffered, rather than see them equal.
> >
> > Actually I keep my eye on the ball......the kids and two parents, mother and
> > father, not one or the other, not exceptions, not the benefits to industries and
> > government or one sex.
> >
> > Nice try to paint me however. Missed;-)
> >
> > Greg Palumbo
> >
>
> Oh but poor Greg, I didn't miss...I hit the nail on the head. Anyone reading your
> previous posts can see that practically every remark you have made is totally and
> ignorantly against "all" women. If you can provide one posting in which you even remotely
> acknowledged that a man might actually, at one point, have wronged a woman, then I could
> possibly concede that you are not the woman hater you have made yourself out to be. :-)
You just don't know the agendas being pushed by the posters yet. The scum rises
to the surface with time. Since you are trying to paint me as something i am
not.....maybe your scum will rise to the surface too. Maybe you don't like the
fact that I often see through the weak excuses for continuing the system as it
exists, or disagree with the notion that only mothers are capable of raising
children, or that any group is entitled to a lifestyle? I write them as I read
them and my viewpoint comes from examining the data, beneficiaries, and money
involved. This is very different than hating all women or all mothers or all
fathers, etc. There might even be a judge or two that I might agree with out
there.
Greg Palumbo
>
> > >
> > > > Greg Palumbo
> > > >
> > > > Pat Winstanley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <352C34...@bigfoot.com>, Phil <Phil...@bigfoot.com>
> > > > > writes
> > > > > >OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >> majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> > > > > >the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > snip the pattyland stuff
Char McCarty
Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 12:56:41 -0400, Char McCarty <almost...@geocities.com>
> expounded:
>
> ->
> ->
> ->Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
> ->
> ->> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:57:31 -0400, Char McCarty
> <almost...@geocities.com>
> ->> expounded:
> ->>
> ->> ->
> ->> ->
> ->> ->Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
> ->> ->
> ->>
> ->> ->> "IF" a man did it implies that men aren't doing it - correct? If so,
> ->> ->> what you say is merely speculation. Accurately done polls show that
> ->> ->> women earn the same income as men when they do the same job with the
> ->> ->> same background and experience. Women tend to make less because of their
> ->> ->> own choices: spotty work history, poor training (majored in "Art
> History"
> ->> ->> rather than engineering), pick jobs that are clean and physically safe,
> ->> ->> etc. (90% of the people killed on the job are men)
> ->> ->>
> ->> ->
> ->> ->Actually, I'm going from experience. I've seen men in my position with
> less
> ->> ->education and skills than myself, earning more than I myself. Take for
> ->> instance the
> ->> ->63 year old man I worked with who fell asleep in his office daily. :-)
> ->> ->
> ->> ->Oh, of course he was also an ex-con who had received his training in
> prison.
> ->> We
> ->> ->were office workers with the same job title. I typed 85+ wpm...he typed
> about
> ->> 40.
> ->> ->I knew a bit of programming...he locked up his computer whenever he tried
> to
> ->> mess
> ->> ->with it, then I was called in to fix it. You see...we weren't equal...I
> had
> ->> the
> ->> ->skills...he didn't. Why then was he paid more?
> ->> ->
> ->> ->Well for one, the manager was a woman hater (Greg would fit in nicely).
> It
> ->> took 3
> ->> ->years before I was given a raise above that of my co-worker, and simply
> put,
> ->>
> ->> And then you were earning more than he was: QED.
> ->>
> ->> it took
> ->> ->the hiring of a new manager to realize I was not being paid for my
> abilities,
> ->> but on
> ->> ->the fact that I was a woman.
> ->> ->
> ->> ->> ->Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and
> polls,
> ->> women
> ->> ->> do
> ->> ->> ->"not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
> ->> ->> ->
> ->> ->>
> ->> ->> That's not a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination.
> ->> ->
> ->> -> Beg to differ but it IS a fact. :-)
> ->>
> ->> Women tend to earn less because of their personal choices.
> ->
> ->You seem to be ignoring the fact that I had no personal choice as to the
> manager's
> ->decision. The fact that he was a bad manager was finally proven at which
> point he
> ->was promptly removed and replaced with one that did a more effective job.
> ->Whereupon, I was promptly raised to the salary that I should have been
> previously
> ->earning. I didn't make any other choices 3 years later as I had 3 years
> before.
> ->Considering the fact that I was "always" 30 minutes early to work, and
> normally
> ->stayed 1 hour past quitting time of my own choice and the man in question,
> normally
> ->was 15 minutes late and left 15 minutes early...also considering that my work
> ->produced was greater than his as shown in weekly reports, tell me what choices
> I
> ->made that affected my pay being so low for the first three years.
>
> Since he was 63, chances are he had more experience: simple time counts
> for a fair amount in government jobs (was it?). But mostly you decided to
> work for 3 years at a place where you felt you were underpaid - like
> I said, they'll try pay you as little as possible, male or female. If
> you were underpaid, why didn't you go somewhere else?
Simply because at the time, jobs in WV were scarce. We had one of the highest
unemployment rates. I did attempt looking for other work, with no bites. And just
because he was 63 did not make him more experienced. He had not the
training..."nor" the personal experience I had. Remember he was an ex-con. This was
his first job out of jail (where he trained for it). I already had experience with
this type of work...he did not.
Char McCarty
GJP wrote:
I've never once agreed with continuing the system in place now, as I'm sure you know, but don't
acknowledge.
> or disagree with the notion that only mothers are capable of raising
> children, or that any group is entitled to a lifestyle?
I've never once stated that only mothers were capable of raising children, as I'm also sure you
are aware of.
> I write them as I read
> them and my viewpoint comes from examining the data, beneficiaries, and money
> involved. This is very different than hating all women or all mothers or all
> fathers, etc. There might even be a judge or two that I might agree with out
> there.
>
As for dubbing you as hating "all" women, it comes from statements you have made toward me and
others that imply since we are women, we are naturally at fault. Perhaps it is just a poor
choice of wording that leads me to believe this is what you are stating. If you are "not"
implying that the woman is "always" at fault...why not just say so?
> Greg Palumbo
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Greg Palumbo
> > > > >
> > > > > Pat Winstanley wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <352C34...@bigfoot.com>, Phil <Phil...@bigfoot.com>
> > > > > > writes
> > > > > > >OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
> > > > > > >the
> > > > > > >> majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> > > > > > >the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > snip the pattyland stuff
Char McCarty
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <352CE4...@earthlink.net>, Phil <ppe...@earthlink.net>
> writes
> >> And too many children not receiving sufficient support from fathers, and
> >> too many mothers having to go without themselves because *they* are
> >> providing the father's share of the support form their (the mother's)
> >> resources. What shall we do about that?
> >
> >Agreed, one is too many. See below.
> >>
> >> Any suggestions?
> >>
> >We begin by scrapping the system that forces a person from their home,
> >removes their children from them and creates a debt without their
> >permission based on arbitrary figures without facts. How could we not do
> >better for the children and BOTH parents?
> >It is such a mess, it's beyond repair.
>
> Ok... scrap it. What, exactly, would you replace it with so that some
> CPs don't get to live it up on their ex's money, and some CPs don't have
> to support their exs?
>
> How would you do it for the many couples for whom JC simply wouldn't be
> fairly workable... people like you... and people like me... people who
> don't fit into the nice neat pigeonholes of *normal* situation?
>
> How would you make sure unfairness was abolished at the extremes, yet
> not mess about with those who can work together fairly with their ex
> partner?
>
> How?
>
> --
> Pat Winstanley
> http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk
I know I can't cover all the bases, but a system in which both parents want and
are willing to joint custody, then joint AND equal custody should be given, as
well as equal payment of medical, insurance, etc. with the payments being sent
to a third party who then, in turn, pays the financial obligation. If one
parent refuses or does not live up to joint custody, that parent would in turn
also be required to make a 50/50 payment for other expenses such as housing
requirements (if it's a matter of 1 BR vs. 2 BR), food, clothing, education,
etc. In all cases basic living expenses should considered, extraneous
expensive school (private schools, expensive universities) should "not" be
considered. This should be jointly decided upon by both parents, but if one
parent wishes the child to attend private school while the other does not...the
one that wishes it, should pay for it.
Neither parent should be allowed to choose the "most" expensive means and
require the other to foot "any" of the cost. CS is only to cover the actual
basic costs of raising a child. Anything else is an added (maybe desired - but
unnecessary) expense.
Phil
> >> too many mothers having to go without themselves because *they* are
> >> providing the father's share of the support form their (the mother's)
> >> resources. What shall we do about that?
> >
> >Agreed, one is too many. See below.
> >>
> >> Any suggestions?
> >>
> >We begin by scrapping the system that forces a person from their home,
> >removes their children from them and creates a debt without their
> >permission based on arbitrary figures without facts. How could we not do
> >better for the children and BOTH parents?
> >It is such a mess, it's beyond repair.
>
> CPs don't get to live it up on their ex's money, and some CPs don't have
> to support their exs?
>
> How would you do it for the many couples for whom JC simply wouldn't be
> fairly workable... people like you... and people like me... people who
> don't fit into the nice neat pigeonholes of *normal* situation?
>
> How would you make sure unfairness was abolished at the extremes, yet
> not mess about with those who can work together fairly with their ex
> partner?
>
> How?
>
Oh, but joint custody WOULD have worked in my situation if it was
presumed. She chose to move back home with mommy and daddy to cut
expenses, have a live in babysitter and have all the free time of a
single non-mother with a guaranteed income.
The first change is get the government out of family law. Then second
there needs to be presumed joint custody which I know you don't like
because you always read "forced" JC.
In any case that would not support the idea of JC, a C$ amount that
would be reasonable, rebuttable.
In your case, how do intact families make it when one parent dies? Apply
that.
Char McCarty
Phil wrote:
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
> >
> > In article <352CE4...@earthlink.net>, Phil <ppe...@earthlink.net>
> > writes
> > >> And too many children not receiving sufficient support from fathers, and
> > >> too many mothers having to go without themselves because *they* are
> > >> providing the father's share of the support form their (the mother's)
> > >> resources. What shall we do about that?
> > >
> > >Agreed, one is too many. See below.
> > >>
> > >> Any suggestions?
> > >>
> > >We begin by scrapping the system that forces a person from their home,
> > >removes their children from them and creates a debt without their
> > >permission based on arbitrary figures without facts. How could we not do
> > >better for the children and BOTH parents?
> > >It is such a mess, it's beyond repair.
> >
> > Ok... scrap it. What, exactly, would you replace it with so that some
> > CPs don't get to live it up on their ex's money, and some CPs don't have
> > to support their exs?
> >
> > How would you do it for the many couples for whom JC simply wouldn't be
> > fairly workable... people like you... and people like me... people who
> > don't fit into the nice neat pigeonholes of *normal* situation?
> >
> > How would you make sure unfairness was abolished at the extremes, yet
> > not mess about with those who can work together fairly with their ex
> > partner?
> >
> > How?
> >
> > --
> > Pat Winstanley
> > http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk
>
> Oh, but joint custody WOULD have worked in my situation if it was
> presumed. She chose to move back home with mommy and daddy to cut
> expenses, have a live in babysitter and have all the free time of a
> single non-mother with a guaranteed income.
>
> The first change is get the government out of family law. Then second
> there needs to be presumed joint custody which I know you don't like
> because you always read "forced" JC.
> In any case that would not support the idea of JC, a C$ amount that
> would be reasonable, rebuttable.
>
> In your case, how do intact families make it when one parent dies? Apply
> that.
>
Actually death is not always by choice, whereas abandonment is. But in US cases,
the children would receive SS benefits if one parent dies, in divorce (if the
other parent is unwilling to assist), they receive nothing.
Phil
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> Phil wrote:
>
> > >
> > > In article <352CE4...@earthlink.net>, Phil <ppe...@earthlink.net>
> > > writes
> > > >> too many mothers having to go without themselves because *they* are
> > > >> providing the father's share of the support form their (the mother's)
> > > >> resources. What shall we do about that?
> > > >
> > > >Agreed, one is too many. See below.
> > > >>
> > > >> Any suggestions?
> > > >>
> > > >We begin by scrapping the system that forces a person from their home,
> > > >removes their children from them and creates a debt without their
> > > >permission based on arbitrary figures without facts. How could we not do
> > > >better for the children and BOTH parents?
> > > >It is such a mess, it's beyond repair.
> > >
> > > CPs don't get to live it up on their ex's money, and some CPs don't have
> > > to support their exs?
> > >
> > > How would you do it for the many couples for whom JC simply wouldn't be
> > > fairly workable... people like you... and people like me... people who
> > > don't fit into the nice neat pigeonholes of *normal* situation?
> > >
> > > How would you make sure unfairness was abolished at the extremes, yet
> > > not mess about with those who can work together fairly with their ex
> > > partner?
> > >
> > > How?
> > >
> > presumed. She chose to move back home with mommy and daddy to cut
> > expenses, have a live in babysitter and have all the free time of a
> > single non-mother with a guaranteed income.
> >
> > The first change is get the government out of family law. Then second
> > there needs to be presumed joint custody which I know you don't like
> > because you always read "forced" JC.
> > In any case that would not support the idea of JC, a C$ amount that
> > would be reasonable, rebuttable.
> >
> > In your case, how do intact families make it when one parent dies? Apply
> > that.
> >
>
> Actually death is not always by choice, whereas abandonment is. But in US cases,
> the children would receive SS benefits if one parent dies, in divorce (if the
> other parent is unwilling to assist), they receive nothing.
Are you sure? Ask Leonard and a few others.
Char McCarty
Phil wrote:
> Char McCarty wrote:
> >
> > Phil wrote:
> >
> > > Pat Winstanley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <352CE4...@earthlink.net>, Phil <ppe...@earthlink.net>
> > > > writes
> > > > >> And too many children not receiving sufficient support from fathers, and
> > > > >> too many mothers having to go without themselves because *they* are
> > > > >> providing the father's share of the support form their (the mother's)
> > > > >> resources. What shall we do about that?
> > > > >
> > > > >Agreed, one is too many. See below.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any suggestions?
> > > > >>
> > > > >We begin by scrapping the system that forces a person from their home,
> > > > >removes their children from them and creates a debt without their
> > > > >permission based on arbitrary figures without facts. How could we not do
> > > > >better for the children and BOTH parents?
> > > > >It is such a mess, it's beyond repair.
> > > >
> > > > Ok... scrap it. What, exactly, would you replace it with so that some
> > > > CPs don't get to live it up on their ex's money, and some CPs don't have
> > > > to support their exs?
> > > >
> > > > How would you do it for the many couples for whom JC simply wouldn't be
> > > > fairly workable... people like you... and people like me... people who
> > > > don't fit into the nice neat pigeonholes of *normal* situation?
> > > >
> > > > How would you make sure unfairness was abolished at the extremes, yet
> > > > not mess about with those who can work together fairly with their ex
> > > > partner?
> > > >
> > > > How?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pat Winstanley
> > > > http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk
> > >
> > > Oh, but joint custody WOULD have worked in my situation if it was
> > > presumed. She chose to move back home with mommy and daddy to cut
> > > expenses, have a live in babysitter and have all the free time of a
> > > single non-mother with a guaranteed income.
> > >
> > > The first change is get the government out of family law. Then second
> > > there needs to be presumed joint custody which I know you don't like
> > > because you always read "forced" JC.
> > > In any case that would not support the idea of JC, a C$ amount that
> > > would be reasonable, rebuttable.
> > >
> > > In your case, how do intact families make it when one parent dies? Apply
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > Actually death is not always by choice, whereas abandonment is. But in US cases,
> > the children would receive SS benefits if one parent dies, in divorce (if the
> > other parent is unwilling to assist), they receive nothing.
>
> Are you sure? Ask Leonard and a few others.
>
Sure about what? That death is not always by choice, that abandonment is or that the
children would receive SS or that they would receive nothing? Sorry, couldn't resist.
:-)
But seriously...not sure if you're remarking that they don't receive SS or that
abandonment is not always their choice. If abandonment...then yes...it is their
choice. I'm not referring to those that are unfairly denied joint custody or
visitation by the courts and then dubbed as abandoning their children. I'm referring
to those that "do" abandon their children.
Ron Dean
On 10 Apr 1998 00:20:38 GMT, OCEANBLU37 says...
>I hope the courts will honor this but if not thats what I will have to do but
>it will be a pain. I feel very verrrryyy fortunate that my ex and I get along
>pretty good and as I said we each have our son 50% of the time so he now spends
>more time with dad than he ever did which is great! I miss him when he's gone
>but I know how important it is to be with dad. It is unfortunate that the
>courts don't give the dad's enough time with their children but joint custody
>is very difficult when parents do not get along and the children can suffer
>because of it.
While I very much admire your attitude, your statement in the last
sentence above has been shown not to be true. Studies in the area of sole
and joint custody have shown that sole custody actually *increases*
inter-parental conflict, while joint-custody does not result in an
unworkable relationship between conflicted parents. Further, while joint-
custody has been shown to result in less maternal satisfaction, it
appears to dramatically increase paternal involvement and children's well
being. It also seems to produce, in the words of one study, an "almost
perfect record" of child support payments.
>Unfortunitily sometimes it is better to have one decision maker
>if 2 can never agree. When our son goes to school we will renegotiate our
>agreement and I'm told the courts will in all liklihood honor that
--
Ron Dean (To Respond, remove 'X' from reply to)
| "Children need daddies more than dollars."
OCEANBLU37
I hope the courts will honor this but if not thats what I will have to do but
it will be a pain. I feel very verrrryyy fortunate that my ex and I get along
pretty good and as I said we each have our son 50% of the time so he now spends
more time with dad than he ever did which is great! I miss him when he's gone
but I know how important it is to be with dad. It is unfortunate that the
courts don't give the dad's enough time with their children but joint custody
is very difficult when parents do not get along and the children can suffer
Tracy Hornschuch
On 10 Apr 1998, OCEANBLU37 wrote:
: I hope the courts will honor this but if not thats what I will have to do but
Good luck... I hope it works out for you. You and your ex has the best
interest on your son at heart.
Tracy
*==*==*==*==*==*==*
tra...@teleport.com |
Tra...@orst.edu | Have you told your children
http://www.teleport.com/~tracyh/ | you love them today?
"We're behind you all the way." - Motto, Procrastinators Club of America
Ron Dean
On 8 Apr 1998 23:13:38 GMT, OCEANBLU37 says...
>Unfortunatily most single mothers
>are living at poverty level, it's still a mans world and most women don't get
>nearly the pay they should. By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
>there is not much left if any. And there are so many fathers who deny their
>responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers when
>in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
It is equally unfortunate that you make blanket statements about "most"
single women and "so many fathers", while condemning the practice of
making blanket statements. "Most" women with a child support order
receive it. Most men do *not* deny responsibility.
It is very unfair to make blanket statements about fathers when in
reality the majority of mothers receive their ordered "child support",
and the fathers meet their responsibilities despite the fact that they
have been legally marginalized as a parent.
>How can you say children are not
>benefitting from child support?
If money is so damn important to children, why don't we take children
away from poor parents, and give them to rich parents to raise? Money is
*not* the important factor - good parents are. Children do not benefit
from "child support", because the laws surrounding "child support"
minimize or eliminate one parent's ability to be a real parent to his
own children, and focuses on collecting money; only the money is
important under "child support" laws.
"Child support" is not only not beneficial to children, it is actually
very damaging to them.
Char McCarty
Ron Dean wrote:
Not true in all cases though Ron. At least I know it isn't true in mine. Sure good
parenting is always better than more money. But if one parent opts out of the
parenting roll, then the other can still be a good parent, but wouldn't assistance
of some type (and since they choose to give up parental assistance) be needed and
tremendously helpful in some cases?
And as also in my case, the CSE has not focused on collecting any money where I'm
concerned. True, the laws are geared to generally eliminate the father, but there
are always those that know how to play the system, and those that don't or won't.
If the father is a real cheat and just plain downright dirty, he can go scott free
while the mother is left with nothing.
It's just that most men are not cheats, and those few that are, are giving the
deadbeat term to the rest. Just as those mothers that withhold visitation and focus
on money grubbing are giving the rest of us mothers a bad name. It's always the few
bad seeds that spoil the crop.
GJP
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> Not true in all cases though Ron. At least I know it isn't true in mine. Sure good
> parenting is always better than more money. But if one parent opts out of the
> parenting roll, then the other can still be a good parent, but wouldn't assistance
> of some type (and since they choose to give up parental assistance) be needed and
> tremendously helpful in some cases?
Some assistance???? More money??? How much do you want? What is your share of
the contribution as well as that from the NCP who has opted out?
This is kind of like your statement that JC is fine if both parents want it in
another post. The problem is most mothers don't want it. You have that familiar
NOW agenda ring to your comments. I hope that it is mistakes on your part, and
not stealth.
>
> And as also in my case, the CSE has not focused on collecting any money where I'm
> concerned.
Has anyone focused on collecting money for you???
>True, the laws are geared to generally eliminate the father
Generally geared......Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Who are you kidding???
, but there
> are always those that know how to play the system, and those that don't or won't.
The politicians know that they cannot force the ones who don't pay to pay CS. So
why are they passing the laws that end up targeting those who try to pay or do
pay?? Think about it.
> If the father is a real cheat and just plain downright dirty, he can go scott free
> while the mother is left with nothing.
This is a choice the mother made so she is in fact partly responsible. And for
those who need it there is no shortage of government programs to help out.
>
> It's just that most men are not cheats, and those few that are, are giving the
> deadbeat term to the rest.
Actually it is feminist extremists who have painted all men as abusers,
batterers, rotten parents, abandoners of marriages, and deadbeats amongst other
negative characteristics that are responsible. If the public were to actually
be given some information on both sides, they would see that women in large part
are responsible for their own situation, yet do not want to be held responsible
for it financially. The number of true deadbeats is not very great and similarly
the number of mothers who abandon their kids is not very great. We allow
extremists and irresponsible mothers and fathers to paint all with the same
negative brush.
Just as those mothers that withhold visitation and focus
> on money grubbing are giving the rest of us mothers a bad name.
Sorry but the numbers suggest it is not a few mothers who interfere. And if you
knew anything about the laws, you would realize they were geared to help mothers
drive fathers off and go for the money.
It's always the few
> bad seeds that spoil the crop.
No, it is always those who scream loudest and the exceptions that provide the
excuse to create the laws that make clients and money. Kids???? Not important in
the bigger scheme of their agendas.
Greg Palumbo
Char McCarty
GJP wrote:
> Char McCarty wrote:
>
> >
> > Not true in all cases though Ron. At least I know it isn't true in mine. Sure good
> > parenting is always better than more money. But if one parent opts out of the
> > parenting roll, then the other can still be a good parent, but wouldn't assistance
> > of some type (and since they choose to give up parental assistance) be needed and
> > tremendously helpful in some cases?
>
> Some assistance???? More money??? How much do you want? What is your share of
> the contribution as well as that from the NCP who has opted out?
>
You know I really hate to resort to name calling, but, when it walks like an ass and talks
like and ass.........
My share...asshole...is 100%. His is ZERO, NIL, ZILCH, ZIP, NADA! And in case you're
illiterate too...that equals 0!
> This is kind of like your statement that JC is fine if both parents want it in
> another post. The problem is most mothers don't want it. You have that familiar
> NOW agenda ring to your comments. I hope that it is mistakes on your part, and
> not stealth.
>
I never commented on "the problem", simply that JC was fine if both parents want it. I
didn't give a shit what MOST mothers wanted, simply that those that DID want JC, should
get their requests.
>
>
> >
> > And as also in my case, the CSE has not focused on collecting any money where I'm
> > concerned.
>
> Has anyone focused on collecting money for you???
>
NOPE!
> >True, the laws are geared to generally eliminate the father
>
> Generally geared......Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Who are you kidding???
>
Oh. So you're saying they're not? Make up your mind!
> , but there
> > are always those that know how to play the system, and those that don't or won't.
>
> The politicians know that they cannot force the ones who don't pay to pay CS. So
> why are they passing the laws that end up targeting those who try to pay or do
> pay?? Think about it.
>
> > If the father is a real cheat and just plain downright dirty, he can go scott free
> > while the mother is left with nothing.
>
> This is a choice the mother made so she is in fact partly responsible. And for
> those who need it there is no shortage of government programs to help out.
>
First acknowledgement I've seen from your narrowminded responses that the woman may only
be "partly" to blame, inferring that the man may be the other part? Think about it.
> >
> > It's just that most men are not cheats, and those few that are, are giving the
> > deadbeat term to the rest.
>
> Actually it is feminist extremists who have painted all men as abusers,
> batterers, rotten parents, abandoners of marriages, and deadbeats amongst other
> negative characteristics that are responsible. If the public were to actually
> be given some information on both sides, they would see that women in large part
> are responsible for their own situation, yet do not want to be held responsible
> for it financially.
IN LARGE PART....not in ALL parts. You seem to constantly forget that and assume since
the majority do this...all women must be scum.
And honestly that's the only problem I have with you is your attitude towards women as a
whole. In case you don't really read what I've posted, there are some statements that
we've both made that generally state the same thing. But you overlook those and only jab
at the ones you think differ with your opinion. If you could open your eyes and simply
admit to yourself that not all women are responsible for what other women have done, we
can cease the petty bickering and talk about more important matters.
> The number of true deadbeats is not very great and similarly
> the number of mothers who abandon their kids is not very great. We allow
> extremists and irresponsible mothers and fathers to paint all with the same
> negative brush.
>
Duh! Boy doesn't that statement sound a bit familiar? Maybe because I said the same
thing?> It's always the few bad seeds that spoil the crop.
>We allow extremists and irresponsible mothers and fathers to paint all with the same
negative brush.
Yup. Look similar to me.
> Just as those mothers that withhold visitation and focus
> > on money grubbing are giving the rest of us mothers a bad name.
>
> Sorry but the numbers suggest it is not a few mothers who interfere. And if you
> knew anything about the laws, you would realize they were geared to help mothers
> drive fathers off and go for the money.
>
Once again we failed to put illiteracy in it's place. "Just as those mothers" is quite
differnt from "Just as those few mothers".
GJP
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> GJP wrote:
>
> > Char McCarty wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Not true in all cases though Ron. At least I know it isn't true in mine. Sure good
> > > parenting is always better than more money. But if one parent opts out of the
> > > parenting roll, then the other can still be a good parent, but wouldn't assistance
> > > of some type (and since they choose to give up parental assistance) be needed and
> > > tremendously helpful in some cases?
> >
>
> > Some assistance???? More money??? How much do you want? What is your share of
> > the contribution as well as that from the NCP who has opted out?
> >
>
> You know I really hate to resort to name calling, but, when it walks like an ass and talks
> like and ass.........
I wanted to know what you thought should be paid, by whom, what the
responsibilities should be. Instead you gave your typical woe is me response
below.
>
> My share...asshole...is 100%. His is ZERO, NIL, ZILCH, ZIP, NADA! And in case you're
> illiterate too...that equals 0!
>
> > This is kind of like your statement that JC is fine if both parents want it in
> > another post. The problem is most mothers don't want it. You have that familiar
> > NOW agenda ring to your comments. I hope that it is mistakes on your part, and
> > not stealth.
> >
>
> I never commented on "the problem", simply that JC was fine if both parents want it. I
> didn't give a shit what MOST mothers wanted, simply that those that DID want JC, should
> get their requests.
Ahhh....and if a mother wants sole custody she should get it. Got it. I thought
that was the gist of your linguistics.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And as also in my case, the CSE has not focused on collecting any money where I'm
> > > concerned.
> >
> > Has anyone focused on collecting money for you???
> >
>
> NOPE!
>
> > >True, the laws are geared to generally eliminate the father
> >
> > Generally geared......Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Who are you kidding???
> >
>
> Oh. So you're saying they're not? Make up your mind!
Generally is a term that suggests that the laws maybe do this in some
circumstances.......this is why I laughed. A man is a wallet and little
more....unless a mother agrees to it.
>
> > , but there
> > > are always those that know how to play the system, and those that don't or won't.
> >
> > The politicians know that they cannot force the ones who don't pay to pay CS. So
> > why are they passing the laws that end up targeting those who try to pay or do
> > pay?? Think about it.
No response??
> >
> > > If the father is a real cheat and just plain downright dirty, he can go scott free
> > > while the mother is left with nothing.
> >
> > This is a choice the mother made so she is in fact partly responsible. And for
> > those who need it there is no shortage of government programs to help out.
> >
>
> First acknowledgement I've seen from your narrowminded responses that the woman may only
> be "partly" to blame, inferring that the man may be the other part? Think about it.
I am well aware who may be responsible in part or in whole. The majority of the
time it is the mother....... I try to focus on the kids however.
>
> > >
> > > It's just that most men are not cheats, and those few that are, are giving the
> > > deadbeat term to the rest.
> >
> > Actually it is feminist extremists who have painted all men as abusers,
> > batterers, rotten parents, abandoners of marriages, and deadbeats amongst other
> > negative characteristics that are responsible. If the public were to actually
> > be given some information on both sides, they would see that women in large part
> > are responsible for their own situation, yet do not want to be held responsible
> > for it financially.
>
> IN LARGE PART....not in ALL parts. You seem to constantly forget that and assume since
> the majority do this...all women must be scum.
Nope..luckily most women aren't scum. Most women however do take advantage of
their being a women, and the advantages of being a women in the eyes of law,
when the opportunity presents itself.
>
> And honestly that's the only problem I have with you is your attitude towards women as a
> whole. In case you don't really read what I've posted, there are some statements that
> we've both made that generally state the same thing.
I have seen your statements and look for what they really say. The JC one is a
good example. If in fact there is an oversimplification on your part, and not
really an attempt to say one thing while meaning another, good because then we
agree. On the other hand....I have listened to too many politicians and folks
with an agenda to dismiss the content and context of what they say so
easily...that in fact is not what it appears to say.
But you overlook those and only jab
> at the ones you think differ with your opinion. If you could open your eyes and simply
> admit to yourself that not all women are responsible for what other women have done, we
> can cease the petty bickering and talk about more important matters.
We do that...talk about serious matters and agendas being pushed by extremists.
>
> > The number of true deadbeats is not very great and similarly
> > the number of mothers who abandon their kids is not very great. We allow
> > extremists and irresponsible mothers and fathers to paint all with the same
> > negative brush.
> >
>
> Duh! Boy doesn't that statement sound a bit familiar? Maybe because I said the same
> thing?
Read it again. There is a very distinct difference between what I said and what
you said as to the frequency of bad parents and interference. It is the context
and the conclusion you draw at the end that suggest both are minor
problems.....they are not equivalent in magnitude nor minor. Just as your
statement on JC is the same statement that NOW extremists would make (ask
lefty).
Greg Palumbo
Char McCarty
GJP wrote:
> Char McCarty wrote:
> >
> > GJP wrote:
> >
> > > Char McCarty wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Not true in all cases though Ron. At least I know it isn't true in mine. Sure good
> > > > parenting is always better than more money. But if one parent opts out of the
> > > > parenting roll, then the other can still be a good parent, but wouldn't assistance
> > > > of some type (and since they choose to give up parental assistance) be needed and
> > > > tremendously helpful in some cases?
> > >
> >
> > > Some assistance???? More money??? How much do you want? What is your share of
> > > the contribution as well as that from the NCP who has opted out?
> > >
> >
> > You know I really hate to resort to name calling, but, when it walks like an ass and talks
> > like and ass.........
>
> I wanted to know what you thought should be paid, by whom, what the
> responsibilities should be. Instead you gave your typical woe is me response
> below.
>
If you wanted to know what I thought "should" be paid, then maybe you "should" have asked me
THAT particular question....you did not. You asked, and I quote, "What is your share of the
contribution as well as that from the NCP who has opted out?" And I told you what my share and
his was. You see, I DO answer questions as they are stated or at least try to. Why do you
refuse to do the same?
> >
> > My share...asshole...is 100%. His is ZERO, NIL, ZILCH, ZIP, NADA! And in case you're
> > illiterate too...that equals 0!
> >
> > > This is kind of like your statement that JC is fine if both parents want it in
> > > another post. The problem is most mothers don't want it. You have that familiar
> > > NOW agenda ring to your comments. I hope that it is mistakes on your part, and
> > > not stealth.
> > >
> >
> > I never commented on "the problem", simply that JC was fine if both parents want it. I
> > didn't give a shit what MOST mothers wanted, simply that those that DID want JC, should
> > get their requests.
>
> Ahhh....and if a mother wants sole custody she should get it. Got it. I thought
> that was the gist of your linguistics.
>
Where you see that I stated "if a mother wants sole custody she should get it" must be through
your triple vision 3-D twilight zone fanstasy land glasses. Take them off and re-read.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And as also in my case, the CSE has not focused on collecting any money where I'm
> > > > concerned.
> > >
> > > Has anyone focused on collecting money for you???
> > >
> >
> > NOPE!
> >
> > > >True, the laws are geared to generally eliminate the father
> > >
> > > Generally geared......Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Who are you kidding???
> > >
> >
> > Oh. So you're saying they're not? Make up your mind!
>
> Generally is a term that suggests that the laws maybe do this in some
> circumstances.......this is why I laughed. A man is a wallet and little
> more....unless a mother agrees to it.
>
In most cases yes, but no I'll never agree that it is in ALL cases. There are too many women
who have been shafted by the man to prove otherwise.
> >
> > > , but there
> > > > are always those that know how to play the system, and those that don't or won't.
> > >
> > > The politicians know that they cannot force the ones who don't pay to pay CS. So
> > > why are they passing the laws that end up targeting those who try to pay or do
> > > pay?? Think about it.
>
> No response??
>
Nope. Cause I'm not a politician and won't even attempt a guess at why they do what they do.
You'll have to ask one of them.
> > >
> > > > If the father is a real cheat and just plain downright dirty, he can go scott free
> > > > while the mother is left with nothing.
> > >
> > > This is a choice the mother made so she is in fact partly responsible. And for
> > > those who need it there is no shortage of government programs to help out.
> > >
> >
> > First acknowledgement I've seen from your narrowminded responses that the woman may only
> > be "partly" to blame, inferring that the man may be the other part? Think about it.
>
> I am well aware who may be responsible in part or in whole. The majority of the
> time it is the mother....... I try to focus on the kids however.
>
Well if you are aware that the mother is not "always" to blame, then at least you've finally
responded to one the questions I've been asking all along. Thank you.
> >
> > > >
> > > > It's just that most men are not cheats, and those few that are, are giving the
> > > > deadbeat term to the rest.
> > >
> > > Actually it is feminist extremists who have painted all men as abusers,
> > > batterers, rotten parents, abandoners of marriages, and deadbeats amongst other
> > > negative characteristics that are responsible. If the public were to actually
> > > be given some information on both sides, they would see that women in large part
> > > are responsible for their own situation, yet do not want to be held responsible
> > > for it financially.
> >
> > IN LARGE PART....not in ALL parts. You seem to constantly forget that and assume since
> > the majority do this...all women must be scum.
>
> Nope..luckily most women aren't scum. Most women however do take advantage of
> their being a women, and the advantages of being a women in the eyes of law,
> when the opportunity presents itself.
>
I never said they didn't. The entire time, I've only been trying to point out that it is not
ALL women.
> >
> > And honestly that's the only problem I have with you is your attitude towards women as a
> > whole. In case you don't really read what I've posted, there are some statements that
> > we've both made that generally state the same thing.
>
> I have seen your statements and look for what they really say. The JC one is a
> good example. If in fact there is an oversimplification on your part, and not
> really an attempt to say one thing while meaning another, good because then we
> agree. On the other hand....I have listened to too many politicians and folks
> with an agenda to dismiss the content and context of what they say so
> easily...that in fact is not what it appears to say.
>
As with the JC statement, it was only geared toward JC in cases where both parties wanted it.
It did not address cases where one party refused or denied or did not want it, as that was not
the topic being discussed at that point.
> But you overlook those and only jab
> > at the ones you think differ with your opinion. If you could open your eyes and simply
> > admit to yourself that not all women are responsible for what other women have done, we
> > can cease the petty bickering and talk about more important matters.
>
> We do that...talk about serious matters and agendas being pushed by extremists.
>
> >
> > > The number of true deadbeats is not very great and similarly
> > > the number of mothers who abandon their kids is not very great. We allow
> > > extremists and irresponsible mothers and fathers to paint all with the same
> > > negative brush.
> > >
> >
> > Duh! Boy doesn't that statement sound a bit familiar? Maybe because I said the same
> > thing?
>
> Read it again. There is a very distinct difference between what I said and what
> you said as to the frequency of bad parents and interference. It is the context
> and the conclusion you draw at the end that suggest both are minor
> problems.....they are not equivalent in magnitude nor minor. Just as your
> statement on JC is the same statement that NOW extremists would make (ask
> lefty).
>
> Greg Palumbo
>
> > It's always the few bad seeds that spoil the crop.
> > >We allow extremists and irresponsible mothers and fathers to paint all with the same
> > negative brush.
> > Yup. Look similar to me.
>
Nowhere does my statement suggest it is a minor problem. And it DOES state the same thing,
granted however, minut the extremists part. But allowing those irreponsible to paint all with
the same negative brush is equivalent to bad seeds spoiling the crop. At least in my book they
mean the same. I know everyone looks at things differently. But I also know that people can
take what another says wrong unless they examine it from their point of view as well.
> >
> > > Just as those mothers that withhold visitation and focus
> > > > on money grubbing are giving the rest of us mothers a bad name.
> > >
> > > Sorry but the numbers suggest it is not a few mothers who interfere. And if you
> > > knew anything about the laws, you would realize they were geared to help mothers
> > > drive fathers off and go for the money.
> > >
> >
> > Once again we failed to put illiteracy in it's place. "Just as those mothers" is quite
> > differnt from "Just as those few mothers".
> >
> > > It's always the few
> > > > bad seeds that spoil the crop.
>
Yup. And my first statements were "those few fathers" and "those mothers", noticeably leaving
"few" out of the mother line-up. I'm not blind to what goes on in the majority of cases. But
neither am I blind to what other individuals deal with on a different scale. "The few bad seeds
spoiling the crop" bit is an old saying I'm sure we all know well that was simply used to
describe that the actions of some cause irreparable harm to all.
GJP
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> GJP wrote:
>
> > Char McCarty wrote:
> > >
> > > GJP wrote:
> > >
> > > > Char McCarty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not true in all cases though Ron. At least I know it isn't true in mine. Sure good
> > > > > parenting is always better than more money. But if one parent opts out of the
> > > > > parenting roll, then the other can still be a good parent, but wouldn't assistance
> > > > > of some type (and since they choose to give up parental assistance) be needed and
> > > > > tremendously helpful in some cases?
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Some assistance???? More money??? How much do you want? What is your share of
> > > > the contribution as well as that from the NCP who has opted out?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You know I really hate to resort to name calling, but, when it walks like an ass and talks
> > > like and ass.........
> >
> > I wanted to know what you thought should be paid, by whom, what the
> > responsibilities should be. Instead you gave your typical woe is me response
> > below.
> >
>
> If you wanted to know what I thought "should" be paid, then maybe you "should" have asked me
> THAT particular question....you did not. You asked, and I quote, "What is your share of the
> contribution as well as that from the NCP who has opted out?" And I told you what my share and
> his was. You see, I DO answer questions as they are stated or at least try to. Why do you
> refuse to do the same?
You told me 100% and that his responsibility was $100 unpaid. What was your
obligation assigned by the court. Is this so difficult for you to understand???
>
> > >
> > > My share...asshole...is 100%. His is ZERO, NIL, ZILCH, ZIP, NADA! And in case you're
> > > illiterate too...that equals 0!
> > >
> > > > This is kind of like your statement that JC is fine if both parents want it in
> > > > another post. The problem is most mothers don't want it. You have that familiar
> > > > NOW agenda ring to your comments. I hope that it is mistakes on your part, and
> > > > not stealth.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I never commented on "the problem", simply that JC was fine if both parents want it. I
> > > didn't give a shit what MOST mothers wanted, simply that those that DID want JC, should
> > > get their requests.
> >
> > Ahhh....and if a mother wants sole custody she should get it. Got it. I thought
> > that was the gist of your linguistics.
> >
>
> Where you see that I stated "if a mother wants sole custody she should get it" must be through
> your triple vision 3-D twilight zone fanstasy land glasses. Take them off and re-read.
Why don't you then explain to us what you mean. We know very well when NOW says
JC is fine if both agree to it in reality means mothers can nix JC anytime they
want.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And as also in my case, the CSE has not focused on collecting any money where I'm
> > > > > concerned.
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone focused on collecting money for you???
> > > >
> > >
> > > NOPE!
> > >
> > > > >True, the laws are geared to generally eliminate the father
> > > >
> > > > Generally geared......Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Who are you kidding???
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh. So you're saying they're not? Make up your mind!
> >
> > Generally is a term that suggests that the laws maybe do this in some
> > circumstances.......this is why I laughed. A man is a wallet and little
> > more....unless a mother agrees to it.
> >
>
> In most cases yes, but no I'll never agree that it is in ALL cases. There are too many women
> who have been shafted by the man to prove otherwise.
Here we are back to the exceptions and non-answers again.
>
> > >
> > > > , but there
> > > > > are always those that know how to play the system, and those that don't or won't.
> > > >
> > > > The politicians know that they cannot force the ones who don't pay to pay CS. So
> > > > why are they passing the laws that end up targeting those who try to pay or do
> > > > pay?? Think about it.
> >
> > No response??
> >
>
> Nope. Cause I'm not a politician and won't even attempt a guess at why they do what they do.
> You'll have to ask one of them.
>
> > > >
> > > > > If the father is a real cheat and just plain downright dirty, he can go scott free
> > > > > while the mother is left with nothing.
> > > >
> > > > This is a choice the mother made so she is in fact partly responsible. And for
> > > > those who need it there is no shortage of government programs to help out.
> > > >
> > >
> > > First acknowledgement I've seen from your narrowminded responses that the woman may only
> > > be "partly" to blame, inferring that the man may be the other part? Think about it.
> >
> > I am well aware who may be responsible in part or in whole. The majority of the
> > time it is the mother....... I try to focus on the kids however.
> >
>
> Well if you are aware that the mother is not "always" to blame, then at least you've finally
> responded to one the questions I've been asking all along. Thank you.
Another non-answer.
And you still didn't address it. I am beginning to see the light as it
were....and so should everyone else.
It is the numbers and the inequity that you dismiss so readily.......in effect
minimizing reality.
Greg Palumbo
snip
Char McCarty
GJP wrote:
It is difficult for anyone to understand a question, when a "different" question is asked.
Full custody with reasonable visitation...that I did offer. I didn't even ask the court for this. I
asked that he be allowed to see his child at any time, just as long as it was supervised as he had
made several attempts on my life and nearly cost the life of our child on two occassions.
Full custody including all medical, daycare, food, clothing, shelter, etc. with a $100/mo. support
obligation from her father and an obligation to provide insurance...which has never been provided. I
have, in lieu of him, provided all her expenses for her.
My obligation did not include 100%, nor did it include half. If I were to add actual expenses spent
per month on raising my daughter, they still come to more than 50% of what he was required to
provide, and still chose not to provide at all.
See, there are some women who pay more than men. I'm one of them. Even if he paid, he would still
be under the 50 percentile and I would still be above. But that was fine with me, as I appreciated
any assistance whatsoever. Had he simply bothered to want contact with his daughter, I would have
been happy. But he didn't want any of it. He opted out and was allowed to do so at no cost to him.
> >
> > > >
> > > > My share...asshole...is 100%. His is ZERO, NIL, ZILCH, ZIP, NADA! And in case you're
> > > > illiterate too...that equals 0!
> > > >
> > > > > This is kind of like your statement that JC is fine if both parents want it in
> > > > > another post. The problem is most mothers don't want it. You have that familiar
> > > > > NOW agenda ring to your comments. I hope that it is mistakes on your part, and
> > > > > not stealth.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I never commented on "the problem", simply that JC was fine if both parents want it. I
> > > > didn't give a shit what MOST mothers wanted, simply that those that DID want JC, should
> > > > get their requests.
> > >
> > > Ahhh....and if a mother wants sole custody she should get it. Got it. I thought
> > > that was the gist of your linguistics.
> > >
> >
> > Where you see that I stated "if a mother wants sole custody she should get it" must be through
> > your triple vision 3-D twilight zone fanstasy land glasses. Take them off and re-read.
>
> Why don't you then explain to us what you mean. We know very well when NOW says
> JC is fine if both agree to it in reality means mothers can nix JC anytime they
> want.
>
I mean exactly what I said. "Those that DID want JC should get their requests. I never said mothers
OR fathers should "nix" the other person from JC simply because they want to or because the system is
screwey. If both parents agree to JC, the courts should stay out of it. If they don't agree, then
it needs to be decided why they don't agree. If one party simply just doesn't want JC of their
children, they should be made to help with cost, and if one party simply doesn't want the other party
to be allowed JC (and the other party is no threat to the child), then JC should be awarded and
enforced anyway. If one party IS a threat to the child, JC could still be awarded with supervised
visits.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And as also in my case, the CSE has not focused on collecting any money where I'm
> > > > > > concerned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone focused on collecting money for you???
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > NOPE!
> > > >
> > > > > >True, the laws are geared to generally eliminate the father
> > > > >
> > > > > Generally geared......Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Who are you kidding???
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh. So you're saying they're not? Make up your mind!
> > >
> > > Generally is a term that suggests that the laws maybe do this in some
> > > circumstances.......this is why I laughed. A man is a wallet and little
> > > more....unless a mother agrees to it.
> > >
> >
> > In most cases yes, but no I'll never agree that it is in ALL cases. There are too many women
> > who have been shafted by the man to prove otherwise.
>
> Here we are back to the exceptions and non-answers again.
>
Do we exclude exceptions simply because they are a minority? Is this fair to "all"? I thought we
wanted a system fair to "all", not a majority "or" a minority. If we exclude "anyone", it cannot be
fair to all.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > , but there
> > > > > > are always those that know how to play the system, and those that don't or won't.
> > > > >
> > > > > The politicians know that they cannot force the ones who don't pay to pay CS. So
> > > > > why are they passing the laws that end up targeting those who try to pay or do
> > > > > pay?? Think about it.
> > >
> > > No response??
> > >
> >
> > Nope. Cause I'm not a politician and won't even attempt a guess at why they do what they do.
> > You'll have to ask one of them.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If the father is a real cheat and just plain downright dirty, he can go scott free
> > > > > > while the mother is left with nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a choice the mother made so she is in fact partly responsible. And for
> > > > > those who need it there is no shortage of government programs to help out.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > First acknowledgement I've seen from your narrowminded responses that the woman may only
> > > > be "partly" to blame, inferring that the man may be the other part? Think about it.
> > >
> > > I am well aware who may be responsible in part or in whole. The majority of the
> > > time it is the mother....... I try to focus on the kids however.
> > >
> >
> > Well if you are aware that the mother is not "always" to blame, then at least you've finally
> > responded to one the questions I've been asking all along. Thank you.
>
> Another non-answer.
>
Another....what's the question? To either this or the other "non-answer", as you put it. I see only
statements. Questions are followed by the appropriate question mark...as in????????
From some of the responses I've seen, I believe quite a few "see the light". Go dig a hole and jump
in, it's the only place you can truly say you have a reason "not" to see the light. You're
one-sided, narrow-minded, pig-headed, and bullish. And frankly I'm tired of one-sided discussions.
Go discuss with someone who gives a damn. I'm here for intelligent conversation. People who
constantly say that another doesn't answer questions they've never been asked, then fail to answer
questions put to them, get nowhere. They're only chasing their tails. Arf arf!
Assumed
>From: Char McCarty <almost...@geocities.com>
>Date: Thu, Apr 9, 1998 10:21 EDT
>Message-id: <6gilmt$h...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>
>
>
>GJP wrote:
>
>> More from Pattyland. Once again bemoaning the fact some women pay for their
>> choices. The majority do not and that is a fact.
>>
>
>No one said the majority does, but you seem to want to "ignore" the fact that
>the
>minority that does has been treated as if they don't exist by you. The
>current laws
>aren't fair to men, but you would rather see them not fair to women simply to
>make
>up for all the years you've suffered, rather than see them equal.
>
Char,
It would seem that Shelly Strauss agrees with that attitude, that there is a
pendulum of injustice, an eye for an eye aproach that would have both injured
parties alternately be injured in the interest of some mythical and distant
"level playing field"
Leonard
Assumed
>From: NoE...@newsguy.com (Fernandinande Le Mur)
>Date: Thu, Apr 9, 1998 11:16 EDT
>Message-id: <3538e55f...@enews.newsguy.com>
>
>On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:57:31 -0400, Char McCarty <almost...@geocities.com>
>expounded:
>
>->
>->
>->Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
>->
>
>->> what you say is merely speculation. Accurately done polls show that
>->> women earn the same income as men when they do the same job with the
>->> same background and experience. Women tend to make less because of their
>->> own choices: spotty work history, poor training (majored in "Art History"
>->> rather than engineering), pick jobs that are clean and physically safe,
>->> etc. (90% of the people killed on the job are men)
>->>
>->
>less
>->education and skills than myself, earning more than I myself. Take for
>->63 year old man I worked with who fell asleep in his office daily. :-)
>->
>prison.
>->were office workers with the same job title. I typed 85+ wpm...he typed
>about
>->I knew a bit of programming...he locked up his computer whenever he tried
>to
>->with it, then I was called in to fix it. You see...we weren't equal...I
>had
>->skills...he didn't. Why then was he paid more?
>->
>->years before I was given a raise above that of my co-worker, and simply
>put,
>
>
>->the hiring of a new manager to realize I was not being paid for my
>abilities,
>->the fact that I was a woman.
>->
>->> ->Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls,
>->> do
>->> ->"not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
>->> ->
>->>
>->
>
>
>
There have been numerous studies, many by parties that had nothing to do with
either the feminist or the masculinist movements about pay and the equality of
pay between men and women. The last I read was a broad study published in the
WSJ that gave a figure of 82 female cents on the male dollar. I assure you
that it was adjusted for every reasonable exception. I remember the headline
being something like "women's pay inequality narrowing", thus it must have been
a greater disparity in the past.
If it is of any merit, I have anecdotal evidence, and some of it is blatant
discrimination.
If we say that women earn less because of personal choice, we may very well say
that men don't get custody more often because of choice.
If we say that women earn less because they are lazy, or incapable, or
untrained, how can we refute those who say men don't get custody because they
are not and cannot be attendant to their children?
I am reminded of the IQ tests given to inner city blacks. They showed that
these kids were many points lower in IQ than the same white kids who took the
same test. Mind you, they were all of sound mind and body. With this in mind
we have several conclusions we could make.
1. The black children didn't WANT to do well -(I don't think so)
2. Black people are stupider than white people - (That is pretty doubtful,
don't you think?)
3. The test is flawed and does not really test IQ at all but something else
I hold that the same is true for any supostition that women are more lazy, less
industrious, or less capable than men in the workplace - The point is that if
they are not getting a female dollar for a job that a male would be paid a
dollar, there is something wrong.
There is no conflict in saying that women still don't get paid what they should
AND that men are not getting treated fairly in family court, the way they
should.
We diminish what we work for by EVER representing gender problems anything but
honestly, all of them.
Leonard
Char McCarty
Assumed wrote:
You could also add 4. Were the black children taking this test given the same
opportunities to learn as the white children?
Phil
thousands of miles away, often just in an attempt to remove the father
from the children. I guess it's not 'abandonment', per se. It is
abandonment in reverse.
Those that actually do abandon the children would be a small percentage
regaredless what NOW and OC$E report.
Char McCarty
Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
> On 10 Apr 1998 22:33:29 GMT, ass...@aol.com (Assumed) expounded:
>
> ->>From: NoE...@newsguy.com (Fernandinande Le Mur)
> ->>Date: Thu, Apr 9, 1998 11:16 EDT
> ->>Message-id: <3538e55f...@enews.newsguy.com>
> ->>
> ->>On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:57:31 -0400, Char McCarty <almost...@geocities.com>
> ->>expounded:
> ->>
> ->>->
> ->>->
> ->>->Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
> ->>->
> ->>
> ->>->> "IF" a man did it implies that men aren't doing it - correct? If so,
> ->>->> what you say is merely speculation. Accurately done polls show that
> ->>->> women earn the same income as men when they do the same job with the
> ->>->> same background and experience. Women tend to make less because of their
> ->>->> own choices: spotty work history, poor training (majored in "Art History"
> ->>->> rather than engineering), pick jobs that are clean and physically safe,
> ->>->> etc. (90% of the people killed on the job are men)
> ->>->>
> ->>->
> ->>->Actually, I'm going from experience. I've seen men in my position with
> ->>less
> ->>->education and skills than myself, earning more than I myself. Take for
> ->>instance the
> ->>->63 year old man I worked with who fell asleep in his office daily. :-)
> ->>->
> ->>->Oh, of course he was also an ex-con who had received his training in
> ->>prison.
> ->>We
> ->>->were office workers with the same job title. I typed 85+ wpm...he typed
> ->>about
> ->>40.
> ->>->I knew a bit of programming...he locked up his computer whenever he tried
> ->>to
> ->>mess
> ->>->with it, then I was called in to fix it. You see...we weren't equal...I
> ->>had
> ->>the
> ->>->skills...he didn't. Why then was he paid more?
> ->>->
> ->>->Well for one, the manager was a woman hater (Greg would fit in nicely). It
> ->>took 3
> ->>->years before I was given a raise above that of my co-worker, and simply
> ->>put,
> ->>
> ->>And then you were earning more than he was: QED.
> ->>
> ->> it took
> ->>->the hiring of a new manager to realize I was not being paid for my
> ->>abilities,
> ->>but on
> ->>->the fact that I was a woman.
> ->>->
> ->>->> ->Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls,
> ->>women
> ->>->> do
> ->>->> ->"not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
> ->>->> ->
> ->>->>
> ->>->> That's not a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination.
> ->>->
> ->>-> Beg to differ but it IS a fact. :-)
> ->>
> ->>Women tend to earn less because of their personal choices.
> ->>
> ->>
> ->
> ->There have been numerous studies, many by parties that had nothing to do with
> ->either the feminist or the masculinist movements about pay and the equality of
> ->pay between men and women. The last I read was a broad study published in the
> ->WSJ that gave a figure of 82 female cents on the male dollar. I assure you
> ->that it was adjusted for every reasonable exception. I remember the headline
> ->being something like "women's pay inequality narrowing", thus it must have
> been
> ->a greater disparity in the past.
>
> Latest I heard was women earned $.98 for every $1 men earned
> if you controlled for hours worked, experience and type of job,
> and it wasn't considered statistically significant.
>
> ->
> ->If it is of any merit, I have anecdotal evidence, and some of it is blatant
> ->discrimination.
> ->
> ->If we say that women earn less because of personal choice, we may very well
> say
> ->that men don't get custody more often because of choice.
> ->
> ->If we say that women earn less because they are lazy, or incapable, or
> ->untrained, how can we refute those who say men don't get custody because they
> ->are not and cannot be attendant to their children?
> ->
> ->I am reminded of the IQ tests given to inner city blacks. They showed that
> ->these kids were many points lower in IQ than the same white kids who took the
> ->same test. Mind you, they were all of sound mind and body. With this in mind
> ->we have several conclusions we could make.
> ->
> ->1. The black children didn't WANT to do well -(I don't think so)
> ->2. Black people are stupider than white people - (That is pretty doubtful,
> ->don't you think?)
> ->3. The test is flawed and does not really test IQ at all but something else
>
> IQ is defined as what is measured by the test.
>
> ->
> ->I hold that the same is true for any supostition that women are more lazy,
> less
> ->industrious, or less capable than men in the workplace - The point is that if
> ->they are not getting a female dollar for a job that a male would be paid a
> ->dollar, there is something wrong.
> ->
> ->There is no conflict in saying that women still don't get paid what they
> should
> ->AND that men are not getting treated fairly in family court, the way they
> ->should.
>
> Big difference: one's a free market, the other is supposed to be a system
> of justice.
>
> ->
> ->We diminish what we work for by EVER representing gender problems anything but
> ->honestly, all of them.
>
> Every decent study I've seen indicates that women tend to work less
> per week, take breaks from the job market, and take different types
> of jobs (which is why 90% of the poeple killed "on the job" are
> men).
>
> Check out
> http://www.weq.gov.bc.ca/GENERAL/EqualTimes97/wgap.html
> and then wonder why the Canadian government considers things like
> having to work regular hours to be discriminatory against women,
> but not men.
>
Regardless of what "Canadian" law thinks, "US" law did not protect my rights to earn
equal pay. Regardless if the majority of women who aren't getting equal pay, may
not be simply because they are lazy or take more breaks, fact is, I wasn't lazy, nor
did I take more breaks. Work reports proved my output to be far greater than that
of my male counterpart. And yes, it was "eventually" corrected. But the years
spent in an unequal pay situation were not made up for.
> I think you might want to research this issue a little further.
>
> ->
> ->Leonard
Char McCarty
Phil wrote:
Yes I agree. Those that voluntarily abandon their children "are" a small percentage, but
they are still a percentage. Laws need to cover this, as well as cover the aspect of a CP
withholding visitation or JC rights. If one parent withholds those rights, then they should
be made to give up their rights to JC entirely. Let them be on the visitation end and see
how they like it.
Char McCarty
GudGye11 wrote:
> In article <199804082313...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> ocean...@aol.com (OCEANBLU37) writes:
>
> >There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and
> >the
> >majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it. It
> >sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
> >hate to see your money go to you ex-wife. Unfortunatily most single mothers
> >are living at poverty level, it's still a mans world and most women don't
> >get
> >nearly the pay they should. By the time you pay babysitters,
> >daycare,etc.,etc.
> >there is not much left if any. And there are so many fathers who deny their
> >responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers
> >when
> >in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
> >There are always going to be people who abuse the system. I know quite a few
> >men who are on disability dishonestly , does that make it ok for me to say
> >all
> >men are lazy and don't want to earn a honest days pay. All people are
> >individauls, some are honest, some not. You need to let go of this enemy
> >stuff, life is to short, let go of it and move on. Yes I am fortunate that I
> >make enough money to make ends meet and my sons father is more than willing
> >to
> >see that his child is provided for. I have total trust that his love for his
> >son overshadows any problems we may have had. How can you say children are
> >not
> >benefitting from child support?
>
> Let go of it and move on? Gee, you sound like my ex, when confronted with the
> inequities of our divorce and custody situation. Her remark: "Life's not
> fair."
>
> Look, you simply don't understand the situation here. I agree with you that
> CPs (or more specifically, the children) deserve child support in situations
> where they have primary custody. I've never heard any rational individual
> argue to the contrary. I also agree that children benefit from CS. Had you
> left it at that, you would have been fine. But to then argue about most single
> mothers living in poverty, and it's a man's world, and by implication saying
> somehow that CS should bring single mothers up to a more palatable standard of
> living? What nerve! I seriously doubt your claim about the majority of single
> mothers living below the poverty level. And of those single mothers you talk
> about, I'm sure that there are many who live there, so to speak, because of
> their choice. My ex is a good example of that. Her latest financial affadavit
> submitted to the court indicates her annual income to be $12,000. On the
> surface that sounds like poverty, doesn't it, with a mother of two boys living
> on $12,000 per year? But at the time we divorced in 1995, she was working full
> time and earning $22,000, and had a history of her salary increasing by $1,000
> - $2,000 annually. Now she has decided to work only three days per week, and
> earns $12,000 per year. Whose fault is that?
Need to watch out here. Some may argue that she decided to work only three days
per week in order to spend more time with the kids. I for one won't buy that line
of reasoning. As 9 months a year, the kids would be in school most of the day, so
you couldn't possibly spend more time with them. Also there is a responsibility to
provide for the kids. If you manage your time well, you should still have plenty
of quality time after hours and on weekends to spend with the kids and still work a
full week.
> Of course I'm sure someone like
> my ex falls within your definition of "poverty"; I, however, don't consider
> voluntary poverty to be true poverty.
>
> The crux of the situation is this: Most NCPs are involved in their children's
> lives, and pay child support. Therefore, decent NCPs are the majority. But
> the CS laws in this country are still grossly confiscatory; the pre-set
> guidelines are much too high and don't in any way, shape or form reflect the
> true, reasonable, ordinary and necessary costs of raising children. Since most
> NCPs comply with paying CS, they must be complying with these unfair
> guidelines. Since these guidelines are inherently unfair, then the CS that
> most NCPs pay then is also unfair. Since I never hear of massive rebates being
> paid by CPs back to NCPs for these overpayments of CS, I can only conclude that
> CPs receiving these guideline amounts are personally benefiting from the excess
> CS they receive.
>
> Now before some of you CPs out there respond back to me about how you don't
> receive anything or receive CS sporadically, let me say that I agree that you
> are getting a raw deal. But MY overpayments to my ex don't make up for the CS
> YOU don't receive. Every time we NCPs who are forced to grossly overpay
> complain about the amounts pay, someone always counters about not receiving
> anything, as if the wad of cash my ex receives will put food in the mouths of
> CPs who get no CS, or as if it's justification that I get punished for some
> jerk out there who doesn't take responsibility for his own support payments.
> If you're a CP out ther who doesn't receive CS, then, by God, you should!
> Let's continue to toughen up the laws to crackdown on deadbeat parents (both
> mothers and fathers) but let's at the same time fight to make ALL the laws
> pertaining to custody and CS computations fair and equitable.
>
Amen...and perhaps another gold star? :-)
> Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
> situation, including this one: "If you want peace, work for justice."
GudGye11
earns $12,000 per year. Whose fault is that? Of course I'm sure someone like
Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
GudGye11
In article <352CBD7A...@prism.gatech.edu>, Patrick Roberts
<gt0...@prism.gatech.edu> writes:
>Let me ask you this. Do you think the only way a parent can support their
>chidren
>financially is via child support payments? I have joint custody but I pay no
>child support. Are you saying that I don't support my child financially? I
>got
>news for you, I buy whatever my daughter needs when she needs it. The only
>time
>her mom and I talk about money is when we are going to share the cost of
>something
>(e.g., girl scout trip, birthday party, etc..). This shows another blaring
>problem with todays ignorant society in that they look at child support money
>as
>the ONLY money a parent is spending on the child. If people bothered to put
>a
>little more brain power behind analyzing a situation they would see the
>truth.
Exactly, Patrick!
What few people seem to realize is that while NCPs are required by the courts
to ostensibly reimburse the CP for their share of the costs of raising the
children, no one requires the CP to reimburse the NCP for the costs THEY pay
out of their own pocket on the children. CS isn't just limited to amounts set
by the courts, but include other voluntary payments made by NCPs. After all,
we NCPs have to feed, clothe, house, transport out children just as any CP
does, it's just that we do it on fewer days (not necessarily our choice).
These costs are just as important as any costs incurred by the CP. But of
course, since they aren't REQUIRED to help the NCP with his/her costs, they are
rarely reimbursed.
LITZIPPO
gudgye11 wrote:
<most snipped>
> I seriously doubt your claim about the majority of single
>mothers living below the poverty level.
Gud,
You have never offended me so I will do my best not to do it to you.....
You have hit a particularly touching subject where I am concerned. I am an
example of someone living below the poverty level, not by my own choice mind
you.
> And of those single mothers you talk
>about, I'm sure that there are many who live there, so to speak, because of
>their choice.
See my above statement.
>The crux of the situation is this: Most NCPs are involved in their
>children's
>lives, and pay child support. Therefore, decent NCPs are the majority.
I can agree with that. Although I wish it were my situation.
I don't want to come off as sounding like my child's disability is at fault
here, but I know that is how some ppl in here are going to take what I have to
say. I can't work because the child care alone would just about wipe out my
entire paycheck. I do not possess the proper skills to even get a decent job to
support the high cost of specialized daycare. flipping burgers is not
sufficient enough to even pay taxes in PA. I tried. I tried hard to search for
jobs that would allow me to work at home but a job that asks YOU for money so
that you could work for them is NOT a legitmate JOB. I can't afford to pay
others so that I can work for them. I get exasperated because I feel that I can
type well enough to work as a typist. That would be the best type of situation
for me because then I wouldn't have to find daycare for my daughter. But
everywhere I look I just can't seem to find an employer that is willing to let
me work from home unless I pay them an "initial start up fee".
Gud, I know how frustrated you must feel that all your money may not be going
to where it should. I worked for nine years before I needed help from a system
that I finally had to use. But I feel better knowing that at least I worked for
it first. I was never a high school dropout either.
Keep your chin up as I have had to. Just think, in a short while, I will no
longer be on the "system" and no one will be "paying" for me.
Judi
Whever you go.....there you are
Cici in Texas
On 11 Apr 1998 01:19:51 GMT, GudGye11 wrote:
<enormous snip>
>Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
>situation, including this one: "If you want peace, work for justice."
As Robert Heinlein wrote in "Time Enough for Love:"
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at the same time."
Cici in Texas
(Remove xspam from email address to reply)
Char McCarty
Cici in Texas wrote:
> On 11 Apr 1998 01:19:51 GMT, GudGye11 wrote:
>
> <enormous snip>
>
> >Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
> >situation, including this one: "If you want peace, work for justice."
>
> As Robert Heinlein wrote in "Time Enough for Love:"
>
> "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at the same time."
>
> Cici in Texas
> (Remove xspam from email address to reply)
Great! A Heinlein fan! We have "all" his books. :-)
Char McCarty
Cici in Texas wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:32:25 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Cici in Texas wrote:
> >
> >> On 11 Apr 1998 01:19:51 GMT, GudGye11 wrote:
> >>
> >> <enormous snip>
> >>
> >> >Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
> >> >situation, including this one: "If you want peace, work for justice."
> >>
> >> As Robert Heinlein wrote in "Time Enough for Love:"
> >>
> >> "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> >> having both at the same time."
> >>
> >> Cici in Texas
>
> >Great! A Heinlein fan! We have "all" his books. :-)
>
> I have all of them except "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan
> Hoag." I checked it out of the library and read it, but I've never
> been able to find a copy for sale. If you run across a copy, snag
> it for me, would you? I'll pay you back, and pay postage and
> everything.
>
You're in luck! We've got a second copy. Want it? We had just packed all the
Heinlein away as we are in the process of moving, but we hadn't yet put the box in
the stack. LOL
You can respond to my email and we can get it to you. It's an old paperback from
1976.
Char McCarty
Char McCarty wrote:
> Cici in Texas wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:32:25 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Cici in Texas wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 11 Apr 1998 01:19:51 GMT, GudGye11 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <enormous snip>
> > >>
> > >> >Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
> > >> >situation, including this one: "If you want peace, work for justice."
> > >>
> > >> As Robert Heinlein wrote in "Time Enough for Love:"
> > >>
> > >> "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> > >> having both at the same time."
> > >>
> > >> Cici in Texas
> >
> > >Great! A Heinlein fan! We have "all" his books. :-)
> >
> > I have all of them except "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan
> > Hoag." I checked it out of the library and read it, but I've never
> > been able to find a copy for sale. If you run across a copy, snag
> > it for me, would you? I'll pay you back, and pay postage and
> > everything.
> >
>
> You're in luck! We've got a second copy. Want it? We had just packed all the
> Heinlein away as we are in the process of moving, but we hadn't yet put the box in
> the stack. LOL
>
> You can respond to my email and we can get it to you. It's an old paperback from
> 1976.
>
BTW. He won't part with the original. The story was first featured in "6 X H" which
is from 1966. :-)
GudGye11
In article <199804110242...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, litz...@aol.com
(LITZIPPO) writes:
Judi, I also understand that there are mitigating circumstances sometimes that
force a CP to be a stay at home parent. So I can truly understand your
situation. But you care certainly a minority as it pertains to CPs and their
working situation.
As far as you working at home, have you every tried something like medical
transcription? My sister has been doing it now for about ten years and loves
it. While both of her boys are now teenagers, when she first started it
allowed her to stay at home with her kids, and the work was done totally at
home, first on her old beat up typewriter and later on a PC. She set her own
hours and could work around the kids and all of their activities. I don't
really know what the pay is like, because I'm not sure whether my sister really
did all this on a full time basis. But the important thing to her was the
freedom it gave to work at home while still care for her kids.
GudGye11
In article <6gj6bc$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Char McCarty
<almost...@geocities.com> writes:
>I know I can't cover all the bases, but a system in which both parents want
>and
>are willing to joint custody, then joint AND equal custody should be given,
>as
>well as equal payment of medical, insurance, etc. with the payments being
>sent
>to a third party who then, in turn, pays the financial obligation. If one
>parent refuses or does not live up to joint custody, that parent would in
>turn
>also be required to make a 50/50 payment for other expenses such as housing
>requirements (if it's a matter of 1 BR vs. 2 BR), food, clothing, education,
>etc. In all cases basic living expenses should considered, extraneous
>expensive school (private schools, expensive universities) should "not" be
>considered. This should be jointly decided upon by both parents, but if one
>parent wishes the child to attend private school while the other does
>not...the
>one that wishes it, should pay for it.
>
>Neither parent should be allowed to choose the "most" expensive means and
>require the other to foot "any" of the cost. CS is only to cover the actual
>basic costs of raising a child. Anything else is an added (maybe desired -
>but
>unnecessary) expense.
OK, Pat.....you asked how, and I think Char just started it off beautifully.
While some might pick apart certain line items, I think Char has basically laid
out the groundwork for a workable solution to the problem.
GudGye11
In article <lbatema-0804...@sdial23.pacificcoast.net>,
lba...@sd61.bc.ca (Leslie) writes:
>In article <199804081957...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>ocean...@aol.com (OCEANBLU37) wrote:
>
>> My stbx and I are divorcing soon and I need to know if the courts will
>honor my
>> wishes to receive no child support. We share our son 50/50 and I do not
>want
>> my ex to be ordered to pay because I make somewhat less than him. Does
>anyone
>> know how NJ handles this?
>
>
>I would think that they would honor your request, but I'm not sure. If
>they don't and do award a CS order, you can always just pay your ex that
>same amount. The courts don't need to know about it.
>
>Good luck.
>
>Leslie
This is really a no-brainer, as Leslie points out. My advice is this: Go into
court with your request to set CS at what you both agree to. I would think in
most cases a judge would go along with whatever the parties agree to. However,
in the event you get a judge who sets CS higher than you both agree to, you
have no choice but to accept that agreement. The NCP will just have to pay the
court ordered CS, and the CP can just "gift" back to the NCP any amount she
feels is excessive. That way he fulfills the order for CS, and he ends up with
a gift from the CP for any amounts considered by both to be excessive.
God, I wish all CS problems were this easy to solve.....
Char McCarty
Cici in Texas wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:50:01 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Char McCarty wrote:
> >
> >> Cici in Texas wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:32:25 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Cici in Texas wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On 11 Apr 1998 01:19:51 GMT, GudGye11 wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <enormous snip>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
> >> > >> >situation, including this one: "If you want peace, work for justice."
> >> > >>
> >> > >> As Robert Heinlein wrote in "Time Enough for Love:"
> >> > >>
> >> > >> "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> >> > >> having both at the same time."
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Cici in Texas
> >> >
> >> > >Great! A Heinlein fan! We have "all" his books. :-)
> >> >
> >> > I have all of them except "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan
> >> > Hoag." I checked it out of the library and read it, but I've never
> >> > been able to find a copy for sale. If you run across a copy, snag
> >> > it for me, would you? I'll pay you back, and pay postage and
> >> > everything.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You're in luck! We've got a second copy. Want it? We had just packed all the
> >> Heinlein away as we are in the process of moving, but we hadn't yet put the box in
> >> the stack. LOL
> >>
> >> You can respond to my email and we can get it to you. It's an old paperback from
> >> 1976.
> >>
> >
> >BTW. He won't part with the original. The story was first featured in "6 X H" >which is from 1966. :-)
>
> Heck, I don't blame him a bit -- I'd do the same thing!
>
> Cici in Texas
> (Remove xspam from email address to reply)
Ok. Tried to respond to your mail and it came back! ACCKKK. LOL
Anyway, was gonna let you know we're sending the book. Can you keep your eyes peeled for a hard back, first
edition of "Red Planet"? If you know where one is, let us know.
Thanks!
Cici in Texas
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:32:25 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
>
>
>Cici in Texas wrote:
>
>> On 11 Apr 1998 01:19:51 GMT, GudGye11 wrote:
>>
>> <enormous snip>
>>
>> >Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
>> >situation, including this one: "If you want peace, work for justice."
>>
>> As Robert Heinlein wrote in "Time Enough for Love:"
>>
>> "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
>> having both at the same time."
>>
>> Cici in Texas
>Great! A Heinlein fan! We have "all" his books. :-)
I have all of them except "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan
Hoag." I checked it out of the library and read it, but I've never
been able to find a copy for sale. If you run across a copy, snag
it for me, would you? I'll pay you back, and pay postage and
everything.
Cici in Texas
Cici in Texas
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:50:01 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
>
>
>Char McCarty wrote:
>
>> Cici in Texas wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:32:25 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Cici in Texas wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On 11 Apr 1998 01:19:51 GMT, GudGye11 wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> <enormous snip>
>> > >>
>> > >> >Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
>> > >> >situation, including this one: "If you want peace, work for justice."
>> > >>
>> > >> As Robert Heinlein wrote in "Time Enough for Love:"
>> > >>
>> > >> "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
>> > >> having both at the same time."
>> > >>
>> > >> Cici in Texas
>> >
>> > >Great! A Heinlein fan! We have "all" his books. :-)
>> >
>> > I have all of them except "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan
>> > Hoag." I checked it out of the library and read it, but I've never
>> > been able to find a copy for sale. If you run across a copy, snag
>> > it for me, would you? I'll pay you back, and pay postage and
>> > everything.
>> >
>>
>> You're in luck! We've got a second copy. Want it? We had just packed all the
>> Heinlein away as we are in the process of moving, but we hadn't yet put the box in
>> the stack. LOL
>>
>> You can respond to my email and we can get it to you. It's an old paperback from
>> 1976.
>>
>
>BTW. He won't part with the original. The story was first featured in "6 X H" >which is from 1966. :-)
Heck, I don't blame him a bit -- I'd do the same thing!
Pat Winstanley
In article <199804111758...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, GudGye11
<gudg...@aol.com> writes
Mmmm... where do we go from here?
The above is perfectly fair as I see it, but... ;-))
Here come the "what if"s. ;-))
But seriously they do need to be considered.
1. How do we decide what are "basic living expenses"? Do we go for the
average for the child's normal environment? Foster payment rates?
Welfare rates? What about the cost of living being much higher in some
areas and lower than others but where the 'quality of life' is similar
(for instance I'm sure I read in here that Alaska has a particularly
high COL, and over here London has a particularly high COL compared to
most of the rest of the country).
2. What happens if one parent cannot afford to provide their share of
the finance required to maintain those basic living expenses? Perhaps
through inability to earn because of disability or simply unable to find
paid work that would make enough money to provide their half and still
have money left over for roof/food etc?
3. What happens if the parents disagree over something fundamental such
as which (if any) religion a child should be raised in? Or what type of
school they should attend (not thinking money aspects here but some
parents believe strongly that their children should be educated in the
state sytem even though they are well able to and woundn't mind paying
for private education). What about medical procedures such as
vaccination which carry risks and benefits? What if one insists the
child be raised vegetarian and the other want's the child to be raised
omnivorous? These sort of issues often have only either/or decisions,
and the decision in one may impact on another (for instance religion and
school).
4. What system would be put into place so that if JC broke down (one
parent started to leave all the day to day care (and expenses) to the
other, how could that be resolved *quickly*? Either the original
agreement enforced or a new agreement formally reached.
5. What if the JC works well but one parent wants or needs to move out
of the area.
6. What if one of the parents remarries and the other parent doesn't
approve of the new spouse's influence on the child(ren)?
These and many other issues do come up now even in existing JC
situations. How should they be resolved, and should we be looking at the
best interests of the child(ren) or the best interests of the parents
when resolving them?
Pat Winstanley
In article <199804111757...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, GudGye11
<gudg...@aol.com> writes
Another possibility could be a correspondence course for re/more
training.
But I agree, home working is the perfect solution. It's hard to get
going and find work to begin with, and it helps if you have a skill in
high demand (even a relatively simple skill) but once started it does
tend to gradually snowball.
BTW, Cici in here is a medical transcriptor(sp?) and would be a good
source of info on that as she works from home as well.
Cici in Texas
Medical transcription requires a *lot* of training to be able to do
it at home, Gud. It also requires a considerable up-front
investment in equipment (transcribers, software, etc.) and reference
books. I've got approximately $600 worth of reference materials
just sitting on my desk, and a list of about $400 more that I need
to buy within the next six months. References also have to be
constantly updated, particularly drug references.
I'm not trying to shoot anybody down, here, but I have seen several
people try to start out at home in this business, with no in-house
experience, and it's been an exercise in frustration and losing
money for all but one of them -- and that one had a husband working
a full-time job to subsidize her while she learned.
If anyone here is really interested in looking into medical
transcription as a career, I'd suggest that you lurk in
sci.med.transcription for a month or two and find out how to do it
right. There are some serious professionals who post to that
newsgroup, and they tell it like it is. Also, check out
http://www.mtdaily.com. You can find out which at-home study
courses are worth the (not-cheap) fees they charge and which are
scams, which national services are worth working for, what
references you really need and which you can put off for later, and
all kinds of other valuable information.
Assumed
>From: Phil <ppe...@earthlink.net>
>Date: Thu, Apr 9, 1998 21:56 EDT
>Message-id: <352D7C...@earthlink.net>
>
>Char McCarty wrote:
>>
>> Phil wrote:
>>
>> > presumed. She chose to move back home with mommy and daddy to cut
>> > expenses, have a live in babysitter and have all the free time of a
>> > single non-mother with a guaranteed income.
>> >
>> > The first change is get the government out of family law. Then second
>> > there needs to be presumed joint custody which I know you don't like
>> > because you always read "forced" JC.
>> > In any case that would not support the idea of JC, a C$ amount that
>> > would be reasonable, rebuttable.
>> >
>> > In your case, how do intact families make it when one parent dies? Apply
>> > that.
>> >
>>
>> Actually death is not always by choice, whereas abandonment is. But in US
>cases,
>> the children would receive SS benefits if one parent dies, in divorce (if
>the
>> other parent is unwilling to assist), they receive nothing.
>
>Are you sure? Ask Leonard and a few others.
>>
>> > Phil
>> > (Note: spam send to my email address will be reported to all postmasters
>> > and ISPs involved with a letter of complaint)
>
>Phil
Yes Phil, as a matter of fact, I believe that her mother would be VERY upset
should I die and she be notified that there are provisions made for my daughter
that don't include my ex - AT ALL.
Imagine the wailing, the renting of clothing, and gnashing of teeth
Leonard
Char McCarty
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <199804111757...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, GudGye11
> <gudg...@aol.com> writes
> Another possibility could be a correspondence course for re/more
> training.
>
> But I agree, home working is the perfect solution. It's hard to get
> going and find work to begin with, and it helps if you have a skill in
> high demand (even a relatively simple skill) but once started it does
> tend to gradually snowball.
>
> BTW, Cici in here is a medical transcriptor(sp?) and would be a good
> source of info on that as she works from home as well.
>
> --
> Pat Winstanley
> http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk
I work at home and love it. :-)
We have 4 guys working subcontract labor. We hold a contract for warranty work on
major brand computers. I schedule appointments all day, type manuals, various
paperwork, etc. while the guys travel to customers homes to do the on-site warranty
work.
You can't beat it. It's great. :-)
Char McCarty
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Living expenses would of course need to be figured for the area in which the
child(ren) live, as they vary from place to place.
> 2. What happens if one parent cannot afford to provide their share of
> the finance required to maintain those basic living expenses? Perhaps
> through inability to earn because of disability or simply unable to find
> paid work that would make enough money to provide their half and still
> have money left over for roof/food etc?
>
Disability should be taken into consideration. If a parent does not work, and are
not disabled, then they should be required, just like the unemployment office
requires, to provide proof that they are attempting to find work. By submitting
information on interviews they have attended. The WV unemployment office requires
you to submit 2 weekly.
If on disability, they could base CS on the 2 opposing incomes to decide upon a fair
and just amount for both parties if it could not possibly be 50/50. If one simply
does not work and is not actively looking for employment, they would be required to
pay 50% regardless. If however, they are actively looking for employment, once a
job has been obtained, they would be required to pay the back support over a period
of time, much like a loan.
> 3. What happens if the parents disagree over something fundamental such
> as which (if any) religion a child should be raised in? Or what type of
> school they should attend (not thinking money aspects here but some
> parents believe strongly that their children should be educated in the
> state sytem even though they are well able to and woundn't mind paying
> for private education). What about medical procedures such as
> vaccination which carry risks and benefits? What if one insists the
> child be raised vegetarian and the other want's the child to be raised
> omnivorous? These sort of issues often have only either/or decisions,
> and the decision in one may impact on another (for instance religion and
> school).
>
If an agreement simply "cannot" or "will not" be reached, then let the courts
decide. Have both parents submit their arguments or claims, then, if the child(ren)
is old enough to understand, they can be asked for what "they" would prefer to do.
> 4. What system would be put into place so that if JC broke down (one
> parent started to leave all the day to day care (and expenses) to the
> other, how could that be resolved *quickly*? Either the original
> agreement enforced or a new agreement formally reached.
>
If either parent misses any of the scheduled JC, they would be required,
automatically, to make it up in expenses, at a preset amount that had been
determined to cover every day missed. In other words, if a parent missed one day,
they would be required to pay $20 to the other parent.
> 5. What if the JC works well but one parent wants or needs to move out
> of the area.
>
Wants, should not be a consideration. Your children did not "want" the divorce.
However, if it is necessary, due to work or other reason, again, it would have to be
up to the courts (preferably a board or panel, so that one person - judge - is not
in control) to decide which parent should receive the majority (i.e.: school time)
JC, based upon arguments from both sides, and where applicable, the child(ren)s
choice. Again, CS would be adjusted according to which parent support the majority
of the expenses and which did not.
> 6. What if one of the parents remarries and the other parent doesn't
> approve of the new spouse's influence on the child(ren)?
>
Unless the new spouse can be shown to truly have a damaging effect upon the
child(ren), "approval" is not a consideration. Many people don't approve of how
others raise children, it doesn't necessarily mean their methods are wrong....just
different.
Pat Winstanley
In article <6gqtj3$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Char McCarty>> In article <199804111757...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, GudGye11
>> <gudg...@aol.com> writes
>We have 4 guys working subcontract labor. We hold a contract for warranty work
>on
>major brand computers. I schedule appointments all day, type manuals, various
>paperwork, etc. while the guys travel to customers homes to do the on-site
>warranty
>work.
>
>You can't beat it. It's great. :-)
>
I know... both my SO and I, by choice, work from home as programmers -
he in our bedroom and me in the kitchen (I wonder if there is anything
significant in the relative genders/locations? ;-)).
We have found one major drawback, though - the difficulty of switching
off after work (something that a commute and change of location helps
tremendously)... especially as we work in slightly different but very
overlapping fields. We have our own brand of Smalltalk! ;-))
BUT it is hard to get into this sort of work arrangement unless you
already have a skill and experience which doesn't require you to have
supervisors or colleagues on hand to help deal with problems.
Char McCarty
Pat Winstanley wrote:
As far as switching off, we work as needed, but our hours are 9 - 7. After 7 we
screen calls via the answering machine. And we have a fax and pager for emergency
calls.
You have to allow some time "off" work for yourselves or it'll get to ya.
Cici in Texas
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 21:08:16 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
>
>
>Cici in Texas wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:50:01 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Char McCarty wrote:
>> >
>> >> Cici in Texas wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:32:25 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Cici in Texas wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> On 11 Apr 1998 01:19:51 GMT, GudGye11 wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> <enormous snip>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> >Pope Paul VI wrote something back in the 60s that holds true in almost any
>> >> > >> >situation, including this one: "If you want peace, work for justice."
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> As Robert Heinlein wrote in "Time Enough for Love:"
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
>> >> > >> having both at the same time."
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Cici in Texas
>> >> >
>> >> > >Great! A Heinlein fan! We have "all" his books. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > I have all of them except "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan
>> >> > Hoag." I checked it out of the library and read it, but I've never
>> >> > been able to find a copy for sale. If you run across a copy, snag
>> >> > it for me, would you? I'll pay you back, and pay postage and
>> >> > everything.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You're in luck! We've got a second copy. Want it? We had just packed all the
>> >> Heinlein away as we are in the process of moving, but we hadn't yet put the box in
>> >> the stack. LOL
>> >>
>> >> You can respond to my email and we can get it to you. It's an old paperback from
>> >> 1976.
>> >>
>> >
>> >BTW. He won't part with the original. The story was first featured in "6 X H" >which is from 1966. :-)
>>
>> Heck, I don't blame him a bit -- I'd do the same thing!
>>
>> Cici in Texas
>> (Remove xspam from email address to reply)
>
>Ok. Tried to respond to your mail and it came back! ACCKKK. LOL
>Anyway, was gonna let you know we're sending the book. Can you keep your eyes peeled for a hard back, first
>edition of "Red Planet"? If you know where one is, let us know.
>
>Thanks!
Did I already send you my snail mail address? Have I been sending
email in my sleep again?
Anyway, I'll be sure to watch for a hardback/1st edition of "Red
Planet" -- you'd be surprised at what shows up at Half Price Books
sometimes. Personally, I want a Willis of my own.
Phil
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> Phil wrote:
>
> > >
> > > There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
> > > majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> >
> > the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> >
> > >It sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
> > > hate to see your money go to you ex-wife.
> >
> >
> > > Unfortunatily most single mothers
> > > are living at poverty level,
> >
> > that are, choose to do so.
> >
> > >it's still a mans world and most women don't get
> > > nearly the pay they should.
> >
> > minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
> > of their own children?
> >
>
> I haven't worked a minimum wage job since high school and I'm not collecting
> welfare. I "choose" to work. But the same job I do pays less than if a man did it.
> Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and polls, women do
> "not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
I guess I should investigate this. It just seems impossible. In today's
courts, a woman that is paid less than men, all else being equal, has
such a good case. If it is as you say, why don't the women sue their
employers?
I don't see it happening, but I can't say that what I see is the norm.
If you say there are surveys and polls, I'd be glad to look at them but
be forewarned, I don't accept any information as fact from those with an
agenda. IOW: proof, please.
>
> > >By the time you pay babysitters, daycare,etc.,etc.
> > > there is not much left if any.
> >
> > There should be little excess left over. Any left over is hidden
> > alimony. How many fathers would love to serve as daycare but are not
> > allowed by the mother?
> > Both parents should be responsible for it, not just the fathers.
> >
>
> Right. There shouldn't be extra CS, but if the CS is not even enough to cover half
> of daycare, clothing and medical for a child, then is that fair either?
Not if the CP is doing the best insofar as cutting unnecessary costs. I
know that if one choose to get 'only the best', it costs much more in
all areas. Medical, of course should be the best.
>
> > > And there are so many fathers who deny their
> > > responsibility. It's very unfair to make blanket statements about mothers when
> > > in reality the majority of mothers do not get the support they truly need.
> >
> > A majority of mothers DO get the support they truly need and then some,
> > which is called "back-door alimony".
> >
>
> And the "minority" that doesn't?
Are screwed just like the majority of NCPs. It is so obvious that many
children and parents are being done a great injustice and this is what
we all should be fighting. Not a continual "he said, she said" argument.
What we need, but do not have, is any resemblance of "the best interests
of the children".
Char McCarty
Phil wrote:
Well I don't know the surveys, but I do know that it was just in the news the other day,
stating that women receive (I think it was 98 cents) to every dollar. This was on CNN.
Suing employers would be fine, but it lies in the "proof" that they would have given more
to a man. And sometimes that is impossible to prove, but some have proved it and sued
employers and won.
Assumed
>From: NoE...@newsguy.com (Fernandinande Le Mur)
>Date: Fri, Apr 10, 1998 18:51 EDT
>Message-id: <3536a009...@enews.newsguy.com>
>
>On 10 Apr 1998 22:33:29 GMT, ass...@aol.com (Assumed) expounded:
>
>->>From: NoE...@newsguy.com (Fernandinande Le Mur)
>->>Date: Thu, Apr 9, 1998 11:16 EDT
>->>Message-id: <3538e55f...@enews.newsguy.com>
>->>
>->>On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:57:31 -0400, Char McCarty
><almost...@geocities.com>
>->>expounded:
>->>
>->>->
>->>->
>->>->Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
>->>->
>->>
>->>->> "IF" a man did it implies that men aren't doing it - correct? If so,
>->>->> what you say is merely speculation. Accurately done polls show that
>->>->> women earn the same income as men when they do the same job with the
>->>->> same background and experience. Women tend to make less because of
>their
>->>->> own choices: spotty work history, poor training (majored in "Art
>History"
>->>->> rather than engineering), pick jobs that are clean and physically
>safe,
>->>->> etc. (90% of the people killed on the job are men)
>->>->>
>->>->
>->>->Actually, I'm going from experience. I've seen men in my position with
>->>less
>->>->education and skills than myself, earning more than I myself. Take for
>->>instance the
>->>->63 year old man I worked with who fell asleep in his office daily. :-)
>->>->
>->>->Oh, of course he was also an ex-con who had received his training in
>->>prison.
>->>We
>->>->were office workers with the same job title. I typed 85+ wpm...he typed
>->>about
>->>40.
>->>->I knew a bit of programming...he locked up his computer whenever he
>tried
>->>to
>->>mess
>->>->with it, then I was called in to fix it. You see...we weren't equal...I
>->>had
>->>the
>->>->skills...he didn't. Why then was he paid more?
>->>->
>->>->Well for one, the manager was a woman hater (Greg would fit in nicely).
>It
>->>took 3
>->>->years before I was given a raise above that of my co-worker, and simply
>->>put,
>->>
>->>And then you were earning more than he was: QED.
>->>
>->> it took
>->>->the hiring of a new manager to realize I was not being paid for my
>->>abilities,
>->>but on
>->>->the fact that I was a woman.
>->>->
>->>->> ->Face facts, and these facts have been proven in many surveys and
>polls,
>->>women
>->>->> do
>->>->> ->"not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
>->>->> ->
>->>->>
>->>->> That's not a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination.
>->>->
>->>-> Beg to differ but it IS a fact. :-)
>->>
>->>Women tend to earn less because of their personal choices.
>->>
>->>
>->
>->There have been numerous studies, many by parties that had nothing to do
>with
>->either the feminist or the masculinist movements about pay and the equality
>of
>->pay between men and women. The last I read was a broad study published in
>the
>->WSJ that gave a figure of 82 female cents on the male dollar. I assure you
>->that it was adjusted for every reasonable exception. I remember the
>headline
>->being something like "women's pay inequality narrowing", thus it must have
>been
>->a greater disparity in the past.
>
>Latest I heard was women earned $.98 for every $1 men earned
>if you controlled for hours worked, experience and type of job,
>and it wasn't considered statistically significant.
>
>->
>->If it is of any merit, I have anecdotal evidence, and some of it is blatant
>->discrimination.
>->
>->If we say that women earn less because of personal choice, we may very well
>say
>->that men don't get custody more often because of choice.
>->
>->If we say that women earn less because they are lazy, or incapable, or
>->untrained, how can we refute those who say men don't get custody because
>they
>->are not and cannot be attendant to their children?
>->
>->I am reminded of the IQ tests given to inner city blacks. They showed that
>->these kids were many points lower in IQ than the same white kids who took
>the
>->same test. Mind you, they were all of sound mind and body. With this in
>mind
>->we have several conclusions we could make.
>->
>->1. The black children didn't WANT to do well -(I don't think so)
>->2. Black people are stupider than white people - (That is pretty doubtful,
>->don't you think?)
>->3. The test is flawed and does not really test IQ at all but something
>else
>
>IQ is defined as what is measured by the test.
Yes, I would suppose, but if THAT is the case, than the test results cannot be
used for valid comparison, except between "races" All that we would know is
that one race does less well on a test that measures what the test defines.
>
>->
>->I hold that the same is true for any supostition that women are more lazy,
>less
>->industrious, or less capable than men in the workplace - The point is that
>if
>->they are not getting a female dollar for a job that a male would be paid a
>->dollar, there is something wrong.
>->
>->There is no conflict in saying that women still don't get paid what they
>should
>->AND that men are not getting treated fairly in family court, the way they
>->should.
>
>Big difference: one's a free market, the other is supposed to be a system
>of justice.
>
Do we actually assume a free market when it comes to issues of discrimination?
I don't think so.
>->
>->We diminish what we work for by EVER representing gender problems anything
>but
>->honestly, all of them.
>
>Every decent study I've seen indicates that women tend to work less
>per week, take breaks from the job market, and take different types
>of jobs (which is why 90% of the poeple killed "on the job" are
>men).
>
>Check out
>http://www.weq.gov.bc.ca/GENERAL/EqualTimes97/wgap.html
>and then wonder why the Canadian government considers things like
>having to work regular hours to be discriminatory against women,
>but not men.
>
>I think you might want to research this issue a little further.
>
>->
>->Leonard
>
>
Le Mur, I checked out the page. It has me curious and at odds with my
"anecdotal" experience and I just hate anecdotal experience.
Maybe I was just very drunk throughout the early 90's and missed the pay
becoming equal.
Leonard
GJP
You all have to stop thinking there was any rational basis behind CS guidelines
other than to ensure alimony would continued to be included for women after
divorce in the name of the children, and as a means to grow a bureaucracy by
making men into criminals.
Greg Palumbo
Phil
Char McCarty wrote:
>
> Phil wrote:
>
> > Char McCarty wrote:
> > >
> > > Phil wrote:
> > >
> > > > OCEANBLU37 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There are millions of women who are perfectly entitled to child support and the
> > > > > majority of those women use the money where they desperatily need it.
> > > >
> > > > C$ is "supposed" to be for the children. How many mothers do NOT spend
> > > > the C$ on the children with the courts full approval I might add.
> > > >
> > > > >It sounds like you have had a bad experience or possibly you're still angry and
> > > > > hate to see your money go to you ex-wife.
> > > >
> > > > In my case, both. I would much rather the money went to my son.
> > > >
> > > > > Unfortunatily most single mothers
> > > > > are living at poverty level,
> > > >
> > > > Most???? I doubt the facts would back up your statement. Some of those
> > > > that are, choose to do so.
> > > >
> > > > >it's still a mans world and most women don't get
> > > > > nearly the pay they should.
> > > >
> > > > Why? Because they choose not to work, live off welfare and C$; work at
> > > > minimum paying jobs, etc. Do you expect mothers to be paid to take care
> > > > of their own children?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I haven't worked a minimum wage job since high school and I'm not collecting
> > > welfare. I "choose" to work. But the same job I do pays less than if a man did it.
> > > "not" get paid on an equal scale with men.
> >
> > courts, a woman that is paid less than men, all else being equal, has
> > such a good case. If it is as you say, why don't the women sue their
> > employers?
> > I don't see it happening, but I can't say that what I see is the norm.
> > If you say there are surveys and polls, I'd be glad to look at them but
> > be forewarned, I don't accept any information as fact from those with an
> > agenda. IOW: proof, please.
> > >
>
> Well I don't know the surveys, but I do know that it was just in the news the other day,
> stating that women receive (I think it was 98 cents) to every dollar. This was on CNN.
> Suing employers would be fine, but it lies in the "proof" that they would have given more
> to a man. And sometimes that is impossible to prove, but some have proved it and sued
> employers and won.
>
I would watch news programs, as well as all forms of the news media with
a jaundiced eye. They don't always report the truth, are famous for
putting a 'spin' on the subject matter.
I was thinking about this situation today at work. I used to have an
office job, where I worked on a project with one other man. He is the
bosses baby and was continually complaining about me and things I was
doing "wrong". The boss talked to me about it and I told him the truth;
that his "boy" makes the same exact mistakes as I do and I could prove
it.
I found out real quick that proof means nothing in a case like this. If
I was a woman, I could file a discrimination suit and probably win.
Being a man, I can't even though it is discrimination. I took the
demotion partly because I am sure that what goes around, comes around.
I'll just wait and watch.
Char McCarty
Phil wrote:
Actually Phil, we would all like to see the "what goes around, comes around" theory in action.
But in reality it's generally "kiss my ass and I'll kiss yours". So the better the ass kisser
at work, the better the benefits reaped.
Char McCarty
Cici in Texas wrote:
No problem Cici, I just tried responding to your email, but posted here instead. Anyway, the book is in the
mail. We sent it priority mail today, so you should get it probably Wednesday. Happy reading!
Phil
Yes, but only as long as the boss is in power. If the other had to stand
on his own two feet, he'd trip.
Char McCarty
Phil wrote:
Well I've actually been in the situation of seeing the boss "trip" and it WAS an enjoyable moment.
:-) This is the boss that didn't feel I should earn as much as a man. But after a few years, they
realized he wasn't doing such a swell job, which included stealing from the company. They gave him
a choice though, quit or be fired. I wonder how many of the actual employees get that same choice?
Wanda
Phil wrote:
>
> Char McCarty wrote:
> >
> > Well I don't know the surveys, but I do know that it was just in the news the other day,
> > stating that women receive (I think it was 98 cents) to every dollar. This was on CNN.
> > Suing employers would be fine, but it lies in the "proof" that they would have given more
> > to a man. And sometimes that is impossible to prove, but some have proved it and sued
> > employers and won.
> >
>
> I would watch news programs, as well as all forms of the news media with
> a jaundiced eye. They don't always report the truth, are famous for
> putting a 'spin' on the subject matter.
Man, you've got it right! I had this experience a few years ago when
something I was peripherally involved in received national publicity -
very negative publicity that was nowhere near the truth. What an
eye-opening experience!
> I was thinking about this situation today at work. I used to have an
> office job, where I worked on a project with one other man. He is the
> bosses baby and was continually complaining about me and things I was
> doing "wrong". The boss talked to me about it and I told him the truth;
> that his "boy" makes the same exact mistakes as I do and I could prove
> it.
> I found out real quick that proof means nothing in a case like this. If
> I was a woman, I could file a discrimination suit and probably win.
> Being a man, I can't even though it is discrimination. I took the
> demotion partly because I am sure that what goes around, comes around.
> I'll just wait and watch.
Did the boss's man have something to gain from criticizing you, or was
he just a generally reprehensible person?
Wanda
Phil
Both, but the main problem was, he thinks he is the only person in the
whole office that knows how to "do" on a computer. I showed him he
didn't know quite as much as he thought plus one of the women are more
than adept with them. She is the main source for all the office about
the computers.
He knew nothing about mainframes then when the mainframes were
incorporated into the PCs, he was totally lost. I did fine and it just
chapped him. That, plus the fact that I just didn't recognize his
self-perceived ability to direct and control (mostly control) the men
under us.
Lori moffit
Char McCarty wrote:
> You seem to be ignoring the fact that I had no personal choice as to the manager's
> decision. The fact that he was a bad manager was finally proven at which point he
> was promptly removed and replaced with one that did a more effective job.
> Whereupon, I was promptly raised to the salary that I should have been previously
> earning. I didn't make any other choices 3 years later as I had 3 years before.
> Considering the fact that I was "always" 30 minutes early to work, and normally
> stayed 1 hour past quitting time of my own choice and the man in question, normally
> was 15 minutes late and left 15 minutes early...also considering that my work
> produced was greater than his as shown in weekly reports, tell me what choices I
> made that affected my pay being so low for the first three years.
You made the choice to stay there, didn't you? if you were so skilled,
why didn't you leave the job where you were so obviously being
discriminated against, and look for employment with a company that would
treat you as you were worth?
Lori
AlmostHeaven
Lori moffit wrote:
I did seek other employment, but as explained here before, unemployment in WV at that
time was at it's highest. And I had a child to care for, so simply quitting was "not" an
option.
--
Char
*To send e-mail, replace hell with heaven. LOL
Lori moffit
LITZIPPO wrote:
>
> gudgye11 wrote:
>
> <most snipped>
> > I seriously doubt your claim about the majority of single
> >mothers living below the poverty level.
>
> Gud,
> You have never offended me so I will do my best not to do it to you.....
>
> You have hit a particularly touching subject where I am concerned. I am an
> example of someone living below the poverty level, not by my own choice mind
> you.
If you are living below the poverty level, then how is it that you can
afford an internet account?
Lori
Ron Dean
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:49:43 -0400, Char McCarty says...
>Ron Dean wrote:
>
>> On 8 Apr 1998 23:13:38 GMT, OCEANBLU37 says...
>> >How can you say children are not
>> >benefitting from child support?
>>
>> If money is so damn important to children, why don't we take children
>> away from poor parents, and give them to rich parents to raise? Money is
>> *not* the important factor - good parents are. Children do not benefit
>> from "child support", because the laws surrounding "child support"
>> minimize or eliminate one parent's ability to be a real parent to his
>> own children, and focuses on collecting money; only the money is
>> important under "child support" laws.
>>
>
>Not true in all cases though Ron. At least I know it isn't true in mine. Sure good
>parenting is always better than more money. But if one parent opts out of the
>parenting roll, then the other can still be a good parent, but wouldn't assistance
>of some type (and since they choose to give up parental assistance) be needed and
>tremendously helpful in some cases?
As we had discussed in another thread, I am indeed willing to support
laws which require a parent, who has proven to have abandoned his/her
children, to be under the CS laws now assumed upon all NCPs. However,
that is not the point of the post. The issue is that an incredibly
inordinate effort is put into assuring monetary "child support" is paid,
but there is little to no effort put into assuring that both parents have
a real and effective role in their children's lives. I claim that the
latter is far and away the item of more import than the former.
All of the claims of the "child's interests" and the ballyhoo about
"children first", are put forth as arguments for the strict "child
support" laws in effect today. I claim that such laws are *not* in a
child's interests, nor do they put children first. Rather, the current
"child support" laws are a detriment to children - especially since those
laws ignore parenting time.
>And as also in my case, the CSE has not focused on collecting any money where I'm
>concerned. True, the laws are geared to generally eliminate the father, but there
>are always those that know how to play the system, and those that don't or won't.
>If the father is a real cheat and just plain downright dirty, he can go scott free
>while the mother is left with nothing.
The presumption of innocence is applicable to criminal law, but not civil
law. Why? Why should NCPs be subjected to the Draconian collection
methods, as well as the state mandating how much a NCP must pay for their
children, when there is no proof, or even evidence, of parental neglect?
>It's just that most men are not cheats, and those few that are, are giving the
>deadbeat term to the rest. Just as those mothers that withhold visitation and focus
>on money grubbing are giving the rest of us mothers a bad name. It's always the few
>bad seeds that spoil the crop.
>
>> "Child support" is not only not beneficial to children, it is actually
>> very damaging to them.
--
Ron Dean (To Respond, remove 'X' from reply to)
| "Children need daddies more than dollars."
AlmostHeaven
Ron Dean wrote:
I agree that the assurance of CS is not the correct method. But I cannot agree that
either item is more important than the other. CS/JC issues need to cover all situations
or we simply trade one bad situation for another.
> All of the claims of the "child's interests" and the ballyhoo about
> "children first", are put forth as arguments for the strict "child
> support" laws in effect today. I claim that such laws are *not* in a
> child's interests, nor do they put children first. Rather, the current
> "child support" laws are a detriment to children - especially since those
> laws ignore parenting time.
>
> >And as also in my case, the CSE has not focused on collecting any money where I'm
> >concerned. True, the laws are geared to generally eliminate the father, but there
> >are always those that know how to play the system, and those that don't or won't.
> >If the father is a real cheat and just plain downright dirty, he can go scott free
> >while the mother is left with nothing.
>
> The presumption of innocence is applicable to criminal law, but not civil
> law. Why? Why should NCPs be subjected to the Draconian collection
> methods, as well as the state mandating how much a NCP must pay for their
> children, when there is no proof, or even evidence, of parental neglect?
>
I don't feel that an NCP in arrears should be subjected to any criminal laws. CS is a
debt, just as all debts. There are other methods of collecting than jail, or revoked
licenses, etc. And if there are two opposing arguments in a CS case, then both should be
examined to find out which is lying. With the harsher penalties going to the one who has
attempted to manipulate the system. They should never go on assumptions or the word of
another, it should always be proven.
> >It's just that most men are not cheats, and those few that are, are giving the
> >deadbeat term to the rest. Just as those mothers that withhold visitation and focus
> >on money grubbing are giving the rest of us mothers a bad name. It's always the few
> >bad seeds that spoil the crop.
> >
> >> "Child support" is not only not beneficial to children, it is actually
> >> very damaging to them.
> --
> Ron Dean (To Respond, remove 'X' from reply to)
> | "Children need daddies more than dollars."
--
LITZIPPO
It is my boyfriend's computer. Not mine.
Judi
Happy thoughts and you too can fly!!
TDeck
>If you are living below the poverty level, then how is it that you can
>afford an internet account?
>Lori
An internet connection is a good alternative to cable television
especially if there are children in the household. In this day and
age, the internet is accessable to all. It's not just a upper middle
class hobby any longer.
Tracey
>If you are living below the poverty level, then how is it that you can
>afford an internet account?
>Lori
You can find accounts that cost $20 and less per month, and some
are free (some colleges give them out). Even if it is one you have
to pay for, even someone living at 'below poverty level' deserves
and *should* make some arrangements for entertainment/information/
etc.
Tracey
Sharyn
I just got a CD from Prodigy Internet for unlimited access for $9.95 per
month.
That really isn't to much. The price of a dinner. And besides that I know
when I lived back home, my sister and I split the cost of the internet. We
both used it. Kinda cheated the company but it did say unlimited and she
wasn't on that often.
Sharyn
Tracey wrote in message <353787...@earthlink.net>...
Cici in Texas
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:49:57 -0400, Char McCarty wrote:
>
>
>Cici in Texas wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Did I already send you my snail mail address? Have I been sending
>> email in my sleep again?
>>
>> Anyway, I'll be sure to watch for a hardback/1st edition of "Red
>> Planet" -- you'd be surprised at what shows up at Half Price Books
>> sometimes. Personally, I want a Willis of my own.
>>
>> Cici in Texas
>No problem Cici, I just tried responding to your email, but posted here instead. >Anyway, the book is in the mail. We sent it priority mail today, so you should
>get it probably Wednesday. Happy reading!
Yes, it did come Wednesday, and thank you a million times! Now I
have a complete collection of Heinlein's work -- wow, I never
thought I'd actually see the day. I am *ever* so obliged!
LITZIPPO
(All Snipped)
Lori,
After giving this some serious thought I am also going to answer your question
this way as well,
Your question:
>>If you are living below the poverty level, then how is it that you can
>>>afford an internet account?
>>>Lori
Ok, first of all, from the way this question is worded, it sounds judgemental.
Maybe it's not but, the original post was not about how it is that I can afford
an internet account. Your question makes me feel that I have to justify my
situation to those that are *better* off than me. I expect a negative reply
from my other answer from those who feel they can tell me how to live.
My boyfriend pays for the acct because it is HIS computer. PERIOD. He is not
responsible for my actions or my debts. He loves me but I am not going to tell
him that he is responsible for me or my child. I am grateful for any help that
I receive from him but in no way would force him to pay for my way.
End of story.
Judi
Think Happy thoughts and you too can fly!!
Char
Cici in Texas wrote:
Well I hope you have hours of happy reading. I need to get started on another book myself. Been spending too much time online lately and not enough time reading.
LOL But I've read about everything we've got...ummm, five bookshelves full! LOL
We have a lot of King and Koontz, all of Heinlein and most of the Star Trek collection.
Lori moffit
It wasn't intended as a judgment. It was a question. but since you
chose to see it that way, I will say (although from what you say, this
doesn't pertain to you), that people who moan about poverty and not even
being able to afford a pair of shoes for their child should not be
paying for internet services, cable, or any other things like that.
That $20 per month would be better served if it were put toward those
non-affordable shoes, IMO. I am not necessarily in a whole lot better
position than you, I have internet access because my husband's work has
to do with selling access to the internet. But we have done a lot of
time where we didn't buy cable service, or any other frills, because
when you can't afford to keep your kid in shoes if you are buying
frills, you ought not to be buying frills. Period. No grey area.
Lori