Under 35, in 1980 7.8 percent never married, 1995 it's 19.2 percent!
Tejay_The_Negotiator.
Marriage is an antiquated institute that needs serious revamping. If not
complete abolishment. It just don't work.
And leave raising kids to the professionals.
jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:
>Foreigner <tso_...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
>>In divorce the vast majority of men not only lose most their assests, but
>>their children as well. I am Un-Married and Without kids and intend to
>>stay that way as long as the laws tend to work against me.. Oh.. and I
>>have an excellent Job. I pity these poor guys who thought Marriage would
>>be forever and ever... I knew better.
>I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
>olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
>I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
>getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
>until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
>the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
>earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
>insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
>who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
>taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
> - John Cooley
Tejay, 34 and intends to stay single, but may mingle.
m890...@redback.co.rmit.edu.au
Oleum addere camino.
Mike Ganopoulos
John Cooley (jco...@world.std.com) wrote:
: Foreigner <tso_...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
: >In divorce the vast majority of men not only lose most their assests, but
: >their children as well. I am Un-Married and Without kids and intend to
: >stay that way as long as the laws tend to work against me.. Oh.. and I
: >have an excellent Job. I pity these poor guys who thought Marriage would
: >be forever and ever... I knew better.
: I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
: olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
: I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
: getting married.
NO!!! Don't do it! We'll hide you and bring you beer.
Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
: until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
: the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
: earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
: insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
: who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
: taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
Plus the fact that there really aren't many advantages to being
married anymore. What's the big deal? People live together and have kids
all of the time without the benefit of being married. Sure, if you have a
religious objection to that it is one thing, but not too many people in
this part of the country have that any more.
It's too much fun to be single. Hell, I can do anything I please;
I've heard that married guys have to ask permission to go places. To hell
with that, it's fun not knowing what state you are going to wake up in,
and with whom. I don't know how to make a bed, and if I want to cook
spaghetti every night and eat it with a screwdriver nobody is going to
complain. Now that's the good life.
Regards,
Mike Ganopoulos
http://www.emi.net/~mg655321
nancy g.
John Cooley wrote:
> I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
> olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
This may be true ... but is this a reflection of "fear of divorce" or
simply a reflection of the changing times ... it is a great deal more
acceptable now to simply live together without a formal marriage.
It used to be people got married in part because of pressure from
society to "make an honest woman" out of the female half of the couple
(talk about your double standard...) or, in a great many cases, the
marriage came about as the consequence of an unexpected pregnancy.
Whether you think this change in society is a good thing or a bad thing,
the fact remains that the higher percentage of single people now compared
to 15 years ago does not necessarily have *anything* to do with divorce!
> I, too, must admit that I have some fear as a guy in Massachusetts about
> getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
> until the kid's 23 (college)
Right -- until age 23 *only* if the child is attending college. But if you
had stayed married, wouldn't you then think it was completely reasonable to
help support your child while he attended college? Why does it suddenly
become unacceptable for you to give the same help to the child, simply
because you are no longer married to the child's mother? Your share of the
responsibility for YOUR child shouldn't be affected by your marital status!
> and starts at roughly 30 percent of what the court says you're *capable*
> of earning -- not what you *actually* earn.
Not true. Child support *starts* at $50 a month. The Mass. child support
figures are based on a sliding scale, taking into account the NCP's income
and the number of children. The minimum, for those who earn under $125 a
week, is $50 a month. For income of $125 to $200 weekly, the child support
is 15 percent for one child, 18 percent for two children, 21 percent for
three children. That "roughly 30 percent" you mention is true **ONLY**
**IF** you are talking about NCP's with incomes of $500 per week or higher
and supporting TWO children. And that amount is less if the custodial
parent earns any income in excess of $15,000.
> In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college
Also not true, unless this is part of the separation/divorce agreement that
you and your spouse work out together and sign before the divorce takes
place. There is no law requiring the "guy" to pay for college.
> and medical insurance
Again, not true. In most cases the cost of medical insurance is split 50-50
unless it's included for free in one parent's work benefits. My husband
and I will be splitting the cost in half, even though his income immediately
after the divorce will be about four times what mine is.
> plus the wife gets the house.
Once again, there is *nothing* in the law that states this. It may be that
the judges would rule that way if it went to court, but that is open
to discussion, at least. You make it sound like it's automatic, and it
certainly is not. In general, the courts try to allow the kids to stay in
the family home and so the custodial parent also gets "custody" of the
house. That doesn't mean that they get to keep it, though, if the mortgage
payments are higher than they can afford with their new income level.
> I know plenty of divorced dads who have to live off of 10 percent of
> their income because of Child Support, taxes, and their kids
> college/medical costs.
Well, assuming they've got a pretty good income, they'd pay 30 percent
for child support and ... what, 27 percent, for taxes? That's 57 percent
You say they live on 10 percent, so that must mean they are spending
33 percent of their gross income on their child's college and medical
expenses? Either they must have a child who's quite ill, or they got
themselves in WAY over their heads when they let their kid enroll in a
college they couldn't afford to send them to. Either way, the divorce
doesn't seem to have much to do with it.
And if you stay married ... exactly what percentage of your income do
you get to keep for yourself after paying what it costs to take care of
your child, plus taxes, plus college and medical costs? These are **NOT**
the costs of a DIVORCE! These are the COSTS OF HAVING A CHILD!!!
People who say they don't want to run the risk of getting married because
they might get divorced and THEN if THAT happened they would be FORCED to
pay for things like the child's medical or educational expenses ...
are missing a step or two in the equation.
Live with it, ALL you parents, custodial or otherwise!!! If you have a
child, you **WILL** need to spend some money to help that child grow into a
competent and healthy adult! And this will happen WHETHER YOU ARE MARRIED
OR SINGLE OR DIVORCED OR REMARRIED OR WIDOWED.
Nancy G.
this stuff is bad enough as it is ... let's not make it sound
any worse by distorting the facts!!!
patrick wharton
In article <DwAGB...@world.std.com>, jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley)
wrote:
> Foreigner <tso_...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
> >In divorce the vast majority of men not only lose most their assests, but
> >their children as well. I am Un-Married and Without kids and intend to
> >stay that way as long as the laws tend to work against me.. Oh.. and I
> >have an excellent Job. I pity these poor guys who thought Marriage would
> >be forever and ever... I knew better.
>
> I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
> olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
>
> I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
> getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
> until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
> the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
> earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
> insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
> who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
> taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
>
> - John Cooley
If there is an incentive to get married and have children I would like to
hear it. Just what is a father in the 90s got to look forward to? I have
three sons that ask me the same question. Any daughters that ask where
will I find a father for your grandchildren. Good luck most males have
seen the future and found it just like the present only longer. For a
potential Father it looks bleak. Ladies when CS ends you better pray for
a new social program other wise that van payment will be hard to meet.
best regards,
Patrick Wharton
--
Tilting windmills is fine as long as they don't fall on you.
Wharton de la Mancha - Sancho call my lawyer
patrick tang
John Cooley,
If you ever have any second thought about getting married, just read
this post again from Nancy G. Yes, SHE is right (aren't they
always?!!), and you want to sign up for that, just say 'I do'.
patrick tang
John Cooley
Foreigner <tso_...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
>In divorce the vast majority of men not only lose most their assests, but
>their children as well. I am Un-Married and Without kids and intend to
>stay that way as long as the laws tend to work against me.. Oh.. and I
>have an excellent Job. I pity these poor guys who thought Marriage would
>be forever and ever... I knew better.
I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
- John Cooley
Foreigner
On Aug 17, 1996 17:45:24 in article <Re: Under 35, in 1980 7.8 percent
never married, 1995 it's 19.2 percent!>, 'mg65...@toledo.emi.net (Mike
Ganopoulos)' wrote:
>John Cooley (jco...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: >In divorce the vast majority of men not only lose most their assests,
but
>: >their children as well. I am Un-Married and Without kids and intend to
>: >stay that way as long as the laws tend to work against me.. Oh.. and I
>: >have an excellent Job. I pity these poor guys who thought Marriage
would
>: >be forever and ever... I knew better.
>
>: I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
>: olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
>
>: I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
>: getting married.
>
>NO!!! Don't do it! We'll hide you and bring you beer.
>
>Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
>: until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
>: the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
>: earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
>: insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
>: who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child
Support,
>: taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
>
>Plus the fact that there really aren't many advantages to being
>married anymore. What's the big deal? People live together and have kids
>all of the time without the benefit of being married. Sure, if you have a
>religious objection to that it is one thing, but not too many people in
>this part of the country have that any more.
>
>It's too much fun to be single. Hell, I can do anything I please;
>I've heard that married guys have to ask permission to go places. To hell
>with that, it's fun not knowing what state you are going to wake up in,
>and with whom. I don't know how to make a bed, and if I want to cook
>spaghetti every night and eat it with a screwdriver nobody is going to
>complain. Now that's the good life.
>
>Regards,
>Mike Ganopoulos
>http://www.emi.net/~mg655321
>
--
Hey .. I'm buying a motorcycle in a couple weeks.. Tell you what, I am
truly glad to be single. I read these these posts of nightmare stories what
has happened to some of these guys, see the postings of the whining
females, and thank God I didn't fall for their crap.
--
John Cooley
Mike Ganopoulos <mg65...@toledo.emi.net> wrote:
>John Cooley (jco...@world.std.com) wrote:
>: I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
>: olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
>: I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
>: until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
>: the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
>: earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
>: insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
>: who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
>: taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
>
> Plus the fact that there really aren't many advantages to being
>married anymore. What's the big deal? People live together and have kids
>all of the time without the benefit of being married. Sure, if you have a
>religious objection to that it is one thing, but not too many people in
>this part of the country have that any more.
Mike, you don't get it: these "benefits" come to any mother in Massachusetts,
married or not. I know one guy at M.I.T. who got his ex-girlfriend
pregnant. She decided not to abort and now the courts say he has to give
48 percent of his income over to her! As his incomes grows, her "cut"
of it grows to keep the 48 percent. If his income drops, he's *still*
required to pay at the level he once could because that's what he's
*capable* of earning. Massachusetts really is anti-father.
- John Cooley
nancy g.
Ciccio wrote:
(in response to my post, some portions snipped here for brevity)
>> if you had stayed married, wouldn't you then think it was completely
>> reasonable to help support your child while he attended college? Why does
>> it suddenly become unacceptable for you to give the same help to the child,
>> simply because you are no longer married to the child's mother?
> It doesn't become *unacceptable*, it becomes *unlawful* after a divorce.
> (snip) the choice doesn't exist. This college issue is one example of that.
> Married parents can *choose* not to pay for a college education.
And I think divorced parents can also choose that option, right? I *think*
(but admit I am not completely sure) that the law says the NCP must continue
to provide the child support until age 23 *IF* the child is still attending
college ... which I still say is just as it should be ... but I don't THINK
the law says they are also *REQUIRED* to pay the college tuition and other
associated costs on top of that ... does it? My oldest is only 13, so we
aren't taking this part of the negotiations quite as seriously as we have
been some of the rest of it ... we are doing mediation for the most part
and haven't gotten to where we actually write up the section on college yet,
but the mediator did make a remark about how the college tuition part of the
agreement will be "pretty flexible ... whatever you two decide to say in the
agreement will be OK, including phrases like "both parents will pay to the best
of their ability" or "both parents will pay according to their income at the
time." (quoting from other agreements she'd helped to mediate)
(And YES, by the way, she *did* tell us we would probably be pretty stupid to
use such vague wording as those examples; her point was just to let us know
that we COULD. And my point is to demonstrate that she made NO MENTION to us
of any law REQUIRING either parent to pay the college costs ... just implying
that they do so voluntarily).
What effect would such a law have? I'm assuming the law we're talking about
would require the NCP to pay ... what, half of the tuition? All? On a sliding
scale? Obviously, this law could not *make* your child go to college ...
obviously this law wouldn't affect those families where both parents *want*
to pay the tuition (and can afford to) ... so the problem would be only at those
times when the CP wants the kid to go to college but the NCP doesn't? Or maybe
the NCP doesn't agree with the choice (i.e., the cost) of the college? Haven't
the kid and the financial aid office and the guidance counselor been advised of
the financial situation in the family all along? Somehow, I doubt that it can
possibly be as easy as me saying, as each kid graduates, "Oh, by the way,
sweetie, I've enrolled them at Yale ... you'll be getting a bill in the mail
next week." (yeah, I WISH... )
I'll check with the mediator again next time we see her; I just don't think
that the original note here presented the NCP's position completely accurately.
I'll post a reply here with what I find out, if this thread is still alive then;
and I promise not to "forget" about it if I find I was wrong!
>> this stuff is bad enough as it is ... let's not make it sound
>> any worse by distorting the facts!!!
> I wouldn't characterize the post as a distortion of facts. Perhaps a few of
> the substantive issues were overstated by the gentleman who posted about his
> apprehensions.
Well, yeah, the statement "child support starts at 30 percent" was definitely
what I would call a LARGE overstatement. I guess the line between "overstatement"
and "distortion" can be seen differently by different people.
> However, he greatly understated the bizarre disparate treatment by the
> government between parents who married and parents who are divorced or
> never married.
Point definitely granted. They ought to treat *all* parents alike as much as
possible, regardless of marital status; perhaps make one set of laws for families
where the parents live in the same house and another set for families where the
parents live separately, and then leave it at that. I agree that it doesn't
make any sense for the single-never-married parents to get off so easy, while
the single-formerly-married parents get screwed and the still-married parents
have yet a third set of laws to go by which is somewhere in between.
It's a complicated issue; there can be no simple answers. Thanks for replying
but not flaming.
Nancy G
still learning.
Ken Smith
In article <DwB08...@world.std.com>,
John Cooley <jco...@world.std.com> wrote:
[...]
>Mike, you don't get it: these "benefits" come to any mother in Massachusetts,
>married or not. I know one guy at M.I.T. who got his ex-girlfriend
>pregnant.
Was she his ex-girlfriend at the time he got her pregnant? I some how
doubt that, so obviously something happend along the way. Could it be
that your friend acted like a jerk? Unfortunately right now there is a
bias in the legal system against men. This does not excuse your friend
from behaving responcibly though. He got the woman pregnant. Did he
just assume she would have an abortion? Many woman simply will not do
that for religious reasons.
--
--
kens...@rahul.net forging knowledge
Mike Ganopoulos
Ciccio (f...@netcom.com) wrote:
: "nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> writes:
: >Right -- until age 23 *only* if the child is attending college. But if you
: >had stayed married, wouldn't you then think it was completely reasonable to
: >help support your child while he attended college? Why does it suddenly
: >become unacceptable for you to give the same help to the child, simply
: >because you are no longer married to the child's mother? Your share of the
: >responsibility for YOUR child shouldn't be affected by your marital status!
But there is one problem with this reasoning- when you turn 18 you
are no longer a child.
I know of a particular tradition of an ethnicity that will remain
nameless. On his 18th birthday a young man receives a suitcase. A married
father is under no obligation to send his children to college. Among
people like us who are educated, failing to at least help provide for a
son's or daughter's college education is unthinkable. This is strictly a
tradition of a particular class, ours. Unfortunately it is also the
tradition of the class that makes the rules.
The practice of forcing fathers to pay for college education can be
taken to the ridiculous extreme. I started college at 16 and am probably
not the only one here who did, so finishing a doctorate by age 23 would
not have been at all implausible. Should a divorced father be forced to
pay for graduate school as well?
Married parents are legally perfectly able to expel their children
from there home at age 18 with no support whatsoever. This practice has
some good to be said for it; I would rather be the 18 year old struggling
to pay the rent than the 30 year old living at home with his parents.
Most White middle-to-upper class people (except for certain ones of that
anonymous ethnicity) have a problem with this, and there is something to
be said for that too.
But by allowing child support orders to be effective to age 23 we
create two problems. The first is discrimination against the divorced-
current anti-discrimination laws do not permit discrimination based on
marital status in lending, housing, employment, etc. It is inconsistent
to permit it in family court. The second is that it effectivley raises
the age of adulthood from 18 to 23 and although this seems to be a
general trend I do not think it is a good one.
Van Matre
Ken Smith <kens...@rahul.net> wrote:
Yes, and he has passed his genes along. He is the childs biological
father. There's more to life than being a consumer and buying things.
Our children are our *real* legacy. Some day he may wish he had done
more, rather that less.
Van
--
Neal C. Wickham
jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
>getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
>until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
>the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
>earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
>insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
>who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
>taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
> - John Cooley
Yikes!!
I am never going to date a woman from Massachusetts as long as I live
and will not set foot in the state with out a 12 pack of condoms!
Why doesn't Massachustts just castrate all men a birth and nip the
problem in the bud? To you guys in Massachusetts... there are other
countries you know. What is so great about being an American?
Neal
Neal C. Wickham
jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
>getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
>until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
>the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
>earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
>insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
>who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
>taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
> - John Cooley
What do they do if you have children from two or three different
women? ...sell you in the slave market?
Neal
Michael Zarlenga
Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
: Plus the fact that there really aren't many advantages to being
For women there are TONS of advantages, from alimony to child support,
to community property statutes that give the woman half of everything,
including items owned prior to the marriage.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Bill Clinton : The Lyin' King
Michael Zarlenga
Neal C. Wickham (nwic...@indirect.com) wrote:
: I am never going to date a woman from Massachusetts as long as I live
: and will not set foot in the state with out a 12 pack of condoms!
Well, keep in mind that Massachusetts is the last great bastion of
"liberalism" in America. Weld (GOP) has ben guv for less than 10
years, so much of the damage of all those years of radical liberal
leadership from the likes of Dukakis, et. al., is yet to be undone.
A word of wisdom: stay away from the "wymmin" you find in Hahvid
Square. They're the worst. Lorena Bobbitt would be right at home
there. A good test to detect the femniacs is to ask them to spell
woman. If they manage to remove the word "man" from it, you've got
one.
faux...@popd.netcruiser
mg65...@toledo.emi.net (Mike Ganopoulos) wrote:
>Ciccio (f...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: "nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> writes:
>: >Right -- until age 23 *only* if the child is attending college. But if you
>: >had stayed married, wouldn't you then think it was completely reasonable to
>: >help support your child while he attended college? Why does it suddenly
>: >become unacceptable for you to give the same help to the child, simply
>: >because you are no longer married to the child's mother? Your share of the
>: >responsibility for YOUR child shouldn't be affected by your marital status!
> But there is one problem with this reasoning- when you turn 18 you
>are no longer a child.
> I know of a particular tradition of an ethnicity that will remain
>nameless. On his 18th birthday a young man receives a suitcase. A married
>father is under no obligation to send his children to college. Among
>people like us who are educated, failing to at least help provide for a
>son's or daughter's college education is unthinkable.
Excuse me? I am educated and my Ex has no intention of helping any of
his children with college. Not even the fees for the SAT or
applications, not a cent. Unthinkable? Not to him, and not to those
like him.
Mark Evans
John Cooley (jco...@world.std.com) wrote:
: Foreigner <tso_...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
: >In divorce the vast majority of men not only lose most their assests, but
: >their children as well. I am Un-Married and Without kids and intend to
: >stay that way as long as the laws tend to work against me.. Oh.. and I
: >have an excellent Job. I pity these poor guys who thought Marriage would
: >be forever and ever... I knew better.
:
: olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
:
: getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
: until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
: the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
: earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
: insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
: who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
: taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
What appears odd is that even though this is happening somwhere which has
laws against sexual discrimination nothing is enforcing them.
Mark Evans
nancy g. (nan...@tiac.net) wrote:
: John Cooley wrote:
:
: > I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
: > olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
:
: This may be true ... but is this a reflection of "fear of divorce" or
: simply a reflection of the changing times ... it is a great deal more
: acceptable now to simply live together without a formal marriage.
: It used to be people got married in part because of pressure from
: society to "make an honest woman" out of the female half of the couple
: (talk about your double standard...) or, in a great many cases, the
I notice you ignore the discrimination against single men vs married
men.
: marriage came about as the consequence of an unexpected pregnancy.
: Whether you think this change in society is a good thing or a bad thing,
: the fact remains that the higher percentage of single people now compared
: to 15 years ago does not necessarily have *anything* to do with divorce!
Excapt that this is the only certain way to avoid divorce.
:
: > I, too, must admit that I have some fear as a guy in Massachusetts about
: > getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
: > until the kid's 23 (college)
:
: Right -- until age 23 *only* if the child is attending college. But if you
: had stayed married, wouldn't you then think it was completely reasonable to
: help support your child while he attended college? Why does it suddenly
Then the obligation would be on BOTH parents.
: become unacceptable for you to give the same help to the child, simply
: because you are no longer married to the child's mother? Your share of the
: responsibility for YOUR child shouldn't be affected by your marital status!
The point is that an NCP is effectivly forced into paying more than if they
were in a married situation. For a (working) CP it might well be the case,
however the way things work out with an NCP having to support adult as well
as child they end up having to pay more.
:
: > and starts at roughly 30 percent of what the court says you're *capable*
: > of earning -- not what you *actually* earn.
:
: Not true. Child support *starts* at $50 a month. The Mass. child support
: figures are based on a sliding scale, taking into account the NCP's income
: and the number of children. The minimum, for those who earn under $125 a
: week, is $50 a month. For income of $125 to $200 weekly, the child support
: is 15 percent for one child, 18 percent for two children, 21 percent for
: three children. That "roughly 30 percent" you mention is true **ONLY**
: **IF** you are talking about NCP's with incomes of $500 per week or higher
: and supporting TWO children. And that amount is less if the custodial
: parent earns any income in excess of $15,000.
Nice explanation, however how about the fact that this method of calculation
is bogus... :-)
: > plus the wife gets the house.
:
: Once again, there is *nothing* in the law that states this. It may be that
: the judges would rule that way if it went to court, but that is open
: to discussion, at least. You make it sound like it's automatic, and it
: certainly is not. In general, the courts try to allow the kids to stay in
: the family home and so the custodial parent also gets "custody" of the
Except that decisions about custody are made blatently sexistly.
: house. That doesn't mean that they get to keep it, though, if the mortgage
:
Mary Ellen Froning
In article <4v5rdt$8...@paperboy.ids.net>,
Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
>Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
>: Plus the fact that there really aren't many advantages to being
>: married anymore. What's the big deal? People live together and have kids
>
>For women there are TONS of advantages, from alimony to child support,
>to community property statutes that give the woman half of everything,
>including items owned prior to the marriage.
rights automatic custody of the chilren after death of the mother (which
is not true if the parents are not married) Not to mention rights to the
children period. Plus it affords the children of the union certain
rights too. Marriage can also let you make decisions if your partner is
dying that you would not be able to do if you're living together even if
it has been a longstanding relationship. Why do you think gays want the
right to get married?
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> Bill Clinton : The Lyin' King
--
Mary Ellen Froning
mfro...@iastate.edu
In women hot flashes are surges of POWER
Hamid Wasti
In article <321717...@tiac.net> "nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> writes:
>I work a hundred and five freakin' hours a week! You think we moms
>do this for the glamour or the excitement or the MONEY or something?
Actually, I am not sure why you do it? More importantly, I am not sure
why you chose to put yourself in the position of having to do it. Even
in a fully harmonious two parent family (does such a thing exist in real
life?) parenting is a full time job times a few and then some for each
partner.
I for one have made the concious decision not to put myself in that
position because I do not think I will enjoy being a full time+ slave to
my kids. If you chose to be a mom, I think you forfeit your right to
complain about the hard work, the hours, etc etc. I am assuming you did
do some research about what you were getting into.
>....where the guy is figuring out how much
>he'd have to pay a prostitute to do what his wife used to do or
>something like that...)
Actually that is an easy calculation from what I hear; it will cost him
exactly $0.00 Having never been married, I can not speak from first hand
experience but talking to most of my married friends, it seems that sex
has dwindled off to close to noting for most of them after a few years.
Loosing my freedom, having to deal with kids (not too many women around
who do not want kids), risking loosing much of my hard earned assets plus
future earnings if the marrige does not work, plus no sex on top of all
that. Thanks but no thanks, I will pass.
-----Hamid
nancy g.
John Cooley wrote:
> nancy g. <nan...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> John Cooley writes:
(snip, snip)
> The way Mass. courts work, a mom can make $15,000 and it doesn't count as
> far as C.S. is calculated.
Well, the CP is allowed to earn up to $15K before the child support payments
get reduced, that's true.
> Hence, there's quite a few "full time mom's" with part time jobs.
Agreed. They can no longer *afford* to be at home all day for their
children, and so *must* find part time jobs so they can at least be home
for the kids after school.
> Then the C.S. payments are based almost exclusively
> on what dad *can* make.
Based on Dad's level of education, work history, age, current employment,
medical history, etc.
> Junior goes to college, dad has to foot the bill
> PLUS continue C.S. payments to mom.
As I said in another reply to someone in this thread, it's the "HAS TO
foot the bill" part that's confusing me. Is it actually a LAW that the
NCP *must* pay tuition for college? Are there *any* limits or restrictions?
Is it based on the NCP's income? The CP's income? The total family income?
The total cost of tuition? I have not seen this mentioned in any reading I've
done, and we were told by our mediator that the wording in the divorce agreement
about college tuition can be "very flexible" as long as we both agree to it.
> >> and starts at roughly 30 percent of what the court says you're *capable*
> >> of earning -- not what you *actually* earn.
>> Not true. (snip of the child support guidelines)
>> That "roughly 30 percent" you mention is true **ONLY**
>> **IF** you are talking about NCP's with incomes of $500 per week
>> or higher and supporting TWO children.
> Try being a guy in Massachusetts and not make AT LEAST $26,000 a year.
> It's *real* easy to very quickly fall into the 30 percent bracket.
That's $13.00 an hour. Minimum wage is what, less than half that? If you're
a college educated professional, then it's true you'd hit the 30 percent
mark quickly. Not everybody's gone to college. Not everybody can make
that kind of money, whether they're a guy or a ... no. I REFUSE to say
a "gal." Dammit, the English language NEEDS another word for "women" that's
the equivalent of what "guy" is for men!!!
> Also, remember
> the judge can impute any income he thinks you're possible of making!
But that imputed income *is* based somewhat on reality ... the judge
wouldn't expect someone without a high school education to earn $135K
a year, for example, or someone who'd been out of work on disability for
years to suddenly start working 45- or 50-hour weeks. It may not be
ABSOLUTELY fair, but neither is it as out of line as you seem to think.
> Again, remember mom's encouraged to NOT work (because Dad will be
> ordered by the courts to pay for everything.)
Jeez, I wish I knew which courts you're referring to ... I'd give up
trying to work out an equitable settlement with my ex and just show up,
because you make it sound like that's all I need to do and I'll be guaranteed
to be living on Easy Street until I die of old age. Yeah ... I *wish* !!!
> Hence, she has no insurance, can't pay for college, and needs the house
> "for the kids" because she's a "full time mom."
She still has insurance, and at no additional cost to Dad for the next
(I think -- not sure of the exact time period) two or three years. The
law in Massachusetts (and perhaps this is a Federal law) says that even
if the parents are divorced the insurance carrier MUST continue to carry
the dependents until such time as the spouse obtains coverage of her own.
The "family" plan for most medical insurance does not distinguish between
one-adult-and-kids and two-adults-and-kids, so Dad continues to pay for
the kid's medical insurance JUST AS HE HAS ALWAYS DONE and Mom's insurance
doesn't add a single penny to that cost.
As far as needing the house for the kids ... hmmm, can we talk "best interest"
here? Why is it assumed that when women make statements about something
being best for the children, they really are secretly doing it selfishly
for themselves and don't care about the kids at all? Maybe ... when we
say we want something for the children ... we really want it for ...
THE CHILDREN ???? In my own case, I'd *love* to escape from this
house where we've gone through so much hell in the past couple of years.
If it was just me, I'd be out of here ... so fast I'd leave a cloud of dust
in my wake as I ran down the street, like in the Road Runner cartoons.
But you know something? I *WILL* *NOT* do something like that to my
kids ... and so I will continue to live in this place that I can't even stand
to look at any more, until I have found a smaller place that I can afford and
that isn't falling down around our ears and that actually has heat and hot
water, and not only that, but I won't make these kids move until I can manage
to talk about and prepare for moving in such a way that my six-year-old
actually might *NOT* have her *ENTIRE* life totally disrupted, just a big
huge part of it.
> Note: mothers aren't required to work in Massachusetts as
> part of any divorce proceeding
Mothers of **CHILDREN UNDER AGE SIX** are not required to work. I know this
one for an absolute fact, as my youngest is six years PLUS a few months old,
and my lawyer, his lawyer, and the mediator all keep calling this
fact to our attention.
> dads are required to pay Child Support
> based on the income the court *believes* he can make -- not what he
> *actually* earns.
Based on real-life expectations. And Moms are required to do the same.
The law says NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS, not "Dads."
>> Well, assuming they've got a pretty good income, they'd pay 30 percent
>> for child support and ... what, 27 percent, for taxes? That's 57 percent
>> You say they live on 10 percent, so that must mean they are spending
>> 33 percent of their gross income on their child's college and medical
>> expenses?
> 27 PERCENT FOR TAXES???
Yep. Just about.
> Who is *your* accountant??
I'm my own accountant, thanks. I don't have the money to hire one.
> You obviously only
> pay the lowest Federal tax, no State tax, no FICA, no sales taxes, no
> excise taxes, no sales taxes...
I "obviously?" Well, let's see. There's no sales tax on food or clothes in
Massachusetts, so the only sales tax we pay is on non-food items at the
store. Big-ticket items, if we buy any, we get in New Hampshire (and I
live close to the state line, where the most convenient shopping for me
*is* over the border, so I don't specifically go there just to avoid taxes.)
Excise tax is MINIMAL on an old car, so I don't take that into account
(we've got two cars, an 87 and an 89).
If you think 27 percent is too low, let's figure it out. Say that
Hypothetical Dad here makes, what, $55K a year? Good income, even in
Massachusetts, right? He's making the mortgage payments, so let's say
the house is mortgaged for ... oh, $90K, and the mortgage is from a
few years ago so it's at 7.5 percent ... that's $650 a month P-and-I ...
say he gets an exemption for himself on the federal tax plus at least one
more for the kid ... state tax in Massachusetts is 5.95 percent ... real
estate tax varies town to town, let's call it 1.6 percent and let's say that
the house is worth $150K ...
OK, let's run these numbers. All very rough estimates.
Gross income: $55,000
Mortgage interest paid: $ 6,000
Exemptions (federal): $ 5,000
Exemptions (state): $ 3,200
Real estate tax: $ 2,400
Massachusetts also has the $2,000 deduction for Social Security and the
additional $500 for a child under 12, so that's another $2,500 deduction
off the state income tax.
So the taxable income for the state is $55K, less $3.2K, less $2.5K, for
a total state taxable income of $49.3K, and 6 percent tax on that is a
total state tax of $2,940.
Taxable income for federal is $55K, less $6K, less $5K, less $2.4K, less the
$2.9K paid to the state, for a total federal taxable income of $38.7K.
Federal tax on that amount is $7,800.
Gross income $55,000
less taxes paid:
Federal $7800
State $2940
Property $2400
Total taxes paid $13,140
-------------------------------------------------
That's 23.89 percent of the gross income for taxes.
I admit that I wasn't thinking about the FICA/Social Security/Medicaid
whatever when I gave the 27 percent figure; if you add the ... what is it,
7 percent more for those things? then it *does* come to a little more than
27 percent. Still, 30 percent for CS and 30 percent for taxes leaves NCP
with 40 percent of his gross pay ... I still claim if he's only left with
10 percent to live on, he's paying too damn much for the kid's tuition.
If this was based on one real person, I'd like to know some actual numbers
for his family, including where the kid goes to college and the amount
NCP pays compared to the total cost, any scholarships, any contribution the
kid makes him/herself, what the CP is paying, etc.
> I guess you don't have to pay for
> car insurance, either!
I don't understand. Why do you say that? Of course I do. We were talking
here about what's left to live on after taxes, child support, and tuition.
Car insurance is a legitimate expense, and of course I pay it. I also pay
my utility bills, and I buy groceries, and I put gas in the car, and the
kids get new winter jackets and sneakers, and I even take the cat to the
vet once a year for her shots ... but none of these things are relevant to
what we've been discussing.
> College expenses are exhorbitant and just
> try buying health insurance on your own these days... (A lot isn't
> covered on pre-existing conditions if you switch jobs, too!)
As I said, NCP's insurance company is obligated to keep the former spouse
and the kids on their plan until they are covered elsewhere.
> I'm basing my arguments that dad makes at least $35,000 a year -- you
> seem to be basing yours on people who make $9,000 a year. Hmmm... How
> does one live in Mass. on $9,000 a year? Don't even office temps
> clear ~$30,000 to ~$35,000 a year? Hmmmm....
Hmmmm indeed. My figures, as I've demonstrated, were very close to being
accurate (except for forgetting to account for the FICA), and for an income
quite a bit better than your $35,000 figure, too. (That will teach me to
read an entire post THOROUGHLY before I start replying to it ... sheesh, if
I'd used $35K as an income instead of the $55K I did use, the numbers would've
come out way better to prove my point!!
>> Nancy G.
>> this stuff is bad enough as it is ... let's not make it sound
>> any worse by distorting the facts!!!
> After punching holes in your distorting the facts ...
Sorry, John, but as you can see, I'm pretty handy with the Spackle.
Now that I've patched up all those holes you tried to punch, please
indicate which facts I distorted?
> I find your closing rather amusing. Nancy, would you care to tell us
> how "imputing" works?
Why yes, thank you John, I'd love to. See, I have three children. The two
younger ones will be living with me, but my oldest will be living with my
ex-husband. That means that **I** get to contribute some of **my** income
toward **his** support. "Imputing" is how the judges have come up with a
figure for what **my** alleged income will be.
First, a bit of background: I last held a "real" job in the summer of
1983, and that was only a temp job. I'm over 40 years old and have an
associate's degree, which was earned in secretarial school back at a time
when we used typewriters ... no, not even electronic word processors, but
just plain typewriters ... to do our work. I have one child who catches
the school bus at 8:35 (she's too young to leave alone to wait until the bus
comes) and another who arrives home at 2:15 (and she's too *OLD* to be left
unsupervised for too long in the afternoon, as well as being too old for the
after-school day care program).
So ... to answer your question ... "imputing" works by having the lawyers
explain to me that I must consider myself **capable of** earning between
$18,000 and $22,000 a year, and that I must consider it **possible** for
me to work 40 hours a week, and then I need to lower the amount of child support
I will actually get for my two girls by the amount it would be lowered if it
actually **were** possible for me to be out bringing home that amount of money
... whether I'm really able to do it, or not.
That's what "imputing" means to me and my family.
> John Cooley
> The Fathers Group
Nancy G.
The Mom
Mark Evans
nancy g. (nan...@tiac.net) wrote:
: John Cooley wrote:
: > nancy g. <nan...@tiac.net> wrote:
: >> John Cooley writes:
:
: (snip, snip)
:
: > The way Mass. courts work, a mom can make $15,000 and it doesn't count as
: > far as C.S. is calculated.
:
: Well, the CP is allowed to earn up to $15K before the child support payments
: get reduced, that's true.
This is a meaningless amount without knowlage of the average wage/cost of
living in that place.
:
: > Hence, there's quite a few "full time mom's" with part time jobs.
:
: Agreed. They can no longer *afford* to be at home all day for their
: children, and so *must* find part time jobs so they can at least be home
: for the kids after school.
Or they simply want extra cash in their pockets..
:
: > Then the C.S. payments are based almost exclusively
: > on what dad *can* make.
:
: Based on Dad's level of education, work history, age, current employment,
: medical history, etc.
But worked out by someone who has no better skill at assesing that than
an average member of the public (possibly less ability). If this
calculation of "potential income" is to be made it needs an expert
who will also take into account the real employment situation, with
the factors listed it is quite possible to come to a conclusion
for which no jobs actually exist or for which someone could not
get because they are the wrong age, social class, gender, race,
personality or marital status...
:
: > Junior goes to college, dad has to foot the bill
: > PLUS continue C.S. payments to mom.
:
: As I said in another reply to someone in this thread, it's the "HAS TO
: foot the bill" part that's confusing me. Is it actually a LAW that the
: NCP *must* pay tuition for college? Are there *any* limits or restrictions?
Depends if you mean "the law" by statute of by court order.
: Is it based on the NCP's income? The CP's income? The total family income?
To be consistent it might well be assessed on the "potential income" which
may well have no relation to reality.
: The total cost of tuition? I have not seen this mentioned in any reading I've
Why would the cost be taken into account? This wasn't the case with the original
so called "child support"..
: done, and we were told by our mediator that the wording in the divorce agreement
: about college tuition can be "very flexible" as long as we both agree to it.
The critial point, what happens if there is not an agreement, e.g. the CP
insists on the NCP paying it all?
:
: > >> and starts at roughly 30 percent of what the court says you're *capable*
: > >> of earning -- not what you *actually* earn.
:
: >> Not true. (snip of the child support guidelines)
: >> That "roughly 30 percent" you mention is true **ONLY**
: >> **IF** you are talking about NCP's with incomes of $500 per week
: >> or higher and supporting TWO children.
:
: > Try being a guy in Massachusetts and not make AT LEAST $26,000 a year.
: > It's *real* easy to very quickly fall into the 30 percent bracket.
:
: That's $13.00 an hour. Minimum wage is what, less than half that? If you're
You make a lot of assumptions in transalting an annual pay to an hourly
rate...
: a college educated professional, then it's true you'd hit the 30 percent
: mark quickly. Not everybody's gone to college. Not everybody can make
But if they have they might well be assumed to be able to earn that
much..
: that kind of money, whether they're a guy or a ... no. I REFUSE to say
: a "gal." Dammit, the English language NEEDS another word for "women" that's
: the equivalent of what "guy" is for men!!!
(or the equivalent of "gal" for women, maybe).
: > Also, remember
: > the judge can impute any income he thinks you're possible of making!
:
: But that imputed income *is* based somewhat on reality ... the judge
It is based on what the judge thinks is reality, it is not unknown for
judges to be out of touch with reality, actually it's something that
profession is somewhat notorious for...
: wouldn't expect someone without a high school education to earn $135K
: a year, for example, or someone who'd been out of work on disability for
: years to suddenly start working 45- or 50-hour weeks. It may not be
: ABSOLUTELY fair, but neither is it as out of line as you seem to think.
What about someone who has been working all they possibly can because they
are married to someone who does not want to work, insists that it is
their right to be supported (possibly also there is abuse involved, such
that the working spouse is in between a rock and a hard place).
nancy g.
> Nancy, this is being cross-posted all over the USA, if not the world.
> Therefore, you shouldn't rely on anything written on this thread as to your
> particular legal situation.
Thanks, but believe me, I am *completely* aware of the *huge* "grain of
salt" required to believe most (if not all) advice found on this or any other
Usenet group. The particular post I was commenting on, however, was making
assertions about the laws in my *own* home state, and so I felt qualified
to comment with at least a little confidence, and also hoped that the original
poster might have an answer to my question about that same state's laws.
> (snip) But that isn't the point. The point
> is that our government has taken it upon itself to micromanage families.
> Currently our government is having great difficulty effectively doing the
> duties it was created to do. It sure as heck can't micromanage families
Amen to that.
> (snip) However, beyond that the government has
> no duty to involve itself in parent-child relationships. If anything,
> it has the duty to refrain from involving itself.
Amen to that too.
>> Thanks for replying but not flaming.
> Why would I flame you?
(snicker) Yeah, like those who typically flame *NEED* a reason?????
> In the mean time, thank you for the refreshing change.
Same to you. Isn't it funny sometimes how much in common people can have
even when they're on "opposite sides" ??
Nancy G.
Not going to be found on this newsgroup for a few weeks (or on any others,
for that matter) ... see my other post in this same thread; I'm trying to
make it perfectly clear to anyone reading that my absence is *NOT* related
to the content of anybody's posts here, in any way at all. It's strictly
due to stuff going on in my Real Life, as opposed to my Cyber Life.
Richard Bennett
Esteemed zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) did proclaim:
> Well, keep in mind that Massachusetts is the last great bastion of
> "liberalism" in America. Weld (GOP) has ben guv for less than 10
> years, so much of the damage of all those years of radical liberal
> leadership from the likes of Dukakis, et. al., is yet to be undone.
California is more generous with wife-support than Massachusetts, though not
for as many years since we don't have the mandate for college support. It's
a question of divorce laws passed by democrats with a dirty conscience about
all the office babes they've been boffing down through the years, and a few
additional man-haters to tip the balance.
New York also sucks.
RB
--
Richard Bennett Cupertino, CA
Ciccio
"nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> writes:
[college education payments - snipped]
Nancy, this is being cross-posted all over the USA, if not the world.
Therefore, you shouldn't rely on anything written on this thread as to your
particular legal situation. Family law varies greatly on particular issues
from state to state. However, some states do require child support
after a child does become an adult, such as for college.
>Well, yeah, the statement "child support starts at 30 percent" was definitely
>what I would call a LARGE overstatement. I guess the line between "overstatement"
>and "distortion" can be seen differently by different people.
In some states it can be higher than 30%. But that isn't the point. The point
is that our government has taken it upon itself to micromanage families.
Currently our government is having great difficulty effectively doing the
duties it was created to do. It sure as heck can't micromanage families, a
duty it certainly isn't designed for...especially in the USA.
In essence, the government certainly has a duty to ensure its people are free
from abuse and oppression. That includes ensuring that the parents don't
abuse children and provide them with the basic necessities of life, that is,
food, shelter, and basic education. However, beyond that the government has
no duty to involve itself in parent-child relationships. If anything, it has
the duty to refrain from involving itself.
The government's duty to ensure that children have food, does not mean that
it must ensure them steak. Yet it imposes itself as such upon divorced
parents. It clearly has no reason to justify that type of overreaching.
Otherwise, it would do so with married people with children. Unless you
subscribe to the premise that the government should dictate the most intimate
family issues of married people with children as well. If that's the case,
then I'm moving from to the USA to the former USSR where there isn't communism.
>It's a complicated issue; there can be no simple answers.
Yep, when the government interferes in areas it has no business being in, it
gets very complicated.
>Thanks for replying but not flaming.
Why would I flame you? Life is replete with issues upon which reasonable minds
may differ. You stated your point respectfully and intelligently. I make
every effort to reply to such posts in kind. Unfortunately, I am finding
fewer and fewer such opportunities to do so on the Net. Alas, I am sure some
moron will cry out to flamed by me. In the mean time, thank you for the
refreshing change.
>Nancy G
>still learning.
As I would hope the other 4+ billion inhabitants of the planet are doing.
Ciccio
Richard Bennett
Esteemed "nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> did proclaim:
> So ... to answer your question ... "imputing" works by having the lawyers
> explain to me that I must consider myself **capable of** earning between
> $18,000 and $22,000 a year, and that I must consider it **possible** for
> me to work 40 hours a week, and then I need to lower the amount of child
> support I will actually get for my two girls by the amount it would be lowered if it
> actually **were** possible for me to be out bringing home that amount of money
"Imputing" is fun. More people should do it.
RB
Dad.
Grasshopper
To whom it my concern,
I read this post with great interest, especially the parts about the "guy from MIT".
It may be of some interest to all of you that I am the "guy from MIT".
I must state that all the postings I have seen referring to me as a "jerk" and/or
"Some day he may wish he had done more, rather than less" really have me INCENESSED<sp?>. >:-(
I can state that I was not acting like "a jerk". As to the question "Was she his ex-girlfriend
at the time he got her pregnant?" yes, she was my ex-girlfriend. For your information, she looked
me up the night that conception took place. It is my firm belief<sp?> that she felt that if she became
pregnant I would marry her.
She was wrong.
Interesting enough, her last boyfriend impregnated her and he did agree to marry her.
Unfortunetly, she had a miscarrage. He set a new land speed record getting away from her.
As for your second, tasteless question, "Did he just assume she would have an abortion?"
No, I knew that she is a VERY religious person and that abortion was totally out of the
question.
I now have a beatifull 2 year old daughter and she is the BEST thing that has ever happened
to me. Granted I am paying a lot in CS, but it is worth every penny of it. The side benefit
of this whole mess is that I now have the daughter I always wanted to have. I am not going to
get married, especially in this state, so that big problem has been removed from my life.
The CS payments will end someday, and then I will get a HUGE increase in my take home pay. My
ex will get a HUGE reality check on that day.
All in all this is not really the way I had planned/hoped this would happen, but I firmly<sp?>
believe that everything works out for the best.
I am there for my daughter 100% of the time, I pay my support on time, I dearly love my daughter
and will always be there should she ever need me. If all of you Einstiens can tell me what "MORE"
I should be doing then I am ALL EARS.
Otherwise, keep your terminally myopic judgements to yourself.
I read everyday about the CP's who want to have the father involved in their childs
life. These are the people you should be addressing your comments to, not me.
FOR THE RECORD:
I AM VERY ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN MY CHILDS LIFE. SHE KNOWS WHO HER FATHER IS AND
WE HAVE A GREAT TIME TOGETHER. I HAVE ALLWAYS PAYED MY CS ON TIME AND HAVE NEVER MISSED A
PAYMENT, THIS IS MY DAUGHTER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, NOT SOME CHATTELL<SP?>. WHENEVER
SOMEONE SAYS ANYTHING DORGITORY ABOUT MY DAUGHTER OR MY REALTIONSHIP WITH HER I COME
TOTALLY UN-GLUED.
Perhaps all of you "experts" should take the time to hear the whole story before you pass
judgement on someone. This shows me that there are still plenty of people out there who
still propigate the "women as victims" bullshit.
It is time you all woke up and had a reality check of your own.
My appologies to all the people who have been very supportive of me, i.e. John Cooley, Leigh,
Patrick Tang, Meghan Walker, Christie, etc. This post was not directed to you, it was however
directed to the likes of Ken Smith and Van Matre and all others who share this opinion.
Regards,
Grasshopper
Awating the inevitable flames....
CVance
Grasshopper's post ("I'm the guy from MIT") is illustrative of why we
can't solve so many of the problems in this society -- we are judgemental
and we don't listen. I've seen it in other newsgroups, too. Regardless
of affiliation, our national political conscious is focused not on
solutions but on pointing accusatory fingers. We align ourselves with a
party or an ideology and then indulge in self-righteous soapboxing.
Taking our cue from radioheads who delight their audience by badgering,
and then hanging up on, differently minded callers, we have allowed
political discourse to degenerate into a shouting match. We no longer
listen because we only want to be heard.
The issues brought up in this newsgroups involve more than a cursory
decision that all men are deadbeats or all moms are greedy manipulators.
So long as this either/or point is the focus of debate the real problems
will never be solved.
As someone said to me when I was a kid trying to understand football,
"Shut up and listen and maybe you'll learn something." Rude, yes, but I
did it and I learned.
Sincerely,
Cathy Vance
nancy g.
Hamid Wasti wrote:
(snipped for brevity: his quote from my semi-tongue-in-cheek post about
how us overworked moms slave away for long hours, week in and week out)
>> ... think we
>> do this for the glamour or the excitement or the MONEY or something?
> Actually, I am not sure why you do it?
The truth? Because I love it. Because my kids mean more to me than
almost anything ... maybe more than ANYTHING ... in the world. Those
of you who don't have kids, or who are not fortunate enough to feel totally
close to them, don't have a clue what you're missing. Love between two
adults can be great (Hey! I *HEARD* that remark somebody out there just made!!
Now, cut it OUT! I know we in this group might not have the best possible
perspective on romance right now, but jeez, don't give up on love COMPLETELY!!!)
but anyway, even that kind of love sometimes doesn't come CLOSE to the way
a soggy sticky kid can make you feel. And they can do it without even
appearing like they have to TRY!
(Note: I am *NOT* one of these moms who seem to be surgically welded to
their kids. Really. I *do* have interests, and even sometimes a life, of my
very own in addition to them).
> More importantly, I am not sure why you chose to put yourself in the
> position of having to do it.
Hmmm. Truthfully, I didn't exactly choose ... fate chose for me.
Serendipity, I guess. Never regretted it for a moment, though. (Well,
maybe for a few BRIEF moments now and then.)
> Even in a fully harmonious two parent family (does such a thing exist in real
> life?)
If it does, you sure can't prove it by me!
> parenting is a full time job times a few and then some for
> each partner.
My point exactly. And if you get stuck in a full-time-and-then-some job
that you HATE, you'll be miserable. I've beeen fortunate that I've been enjoying
this experience for 13 years now and still, most of the time, continue to
enjoy it.
> I for one have made the concious decision not to put myself in that
> position because I do not think I will enjoy being a full time+ slave to
> my kids.
Very wise of you. I think a lot of this conflict about child support,
CP vs. NCP, and even just divorce itself, would be resolved a lot easier if
it were more socially acceptable to say "I don't want kids, I don't think I'd
be a good parent" and have people BELIEVE and ACCEPT that statement.
> If you chose to be a mom, I think you forfeit your right to
> complain about the hard work, the hours, etc etc.
(snicker) Hell, NO, you don't forfeit that right!!! That's one of the
greatest perks of the whole job, the right to go around complaining all
the time about how tough your life is!!! (Seriously, though; think about
it. People "in the trenches" doing any tough day to day grind will quite
often bitch and moan about their jobs, especially when they get together
with others who have the same occupation ... but a lot of them, down deep,
would NEVER change their lives even if they could.)
> I am assuming you did
> do some research about what you were getting into.
(snicker again) Nothing ... absolutely NOTHING ... can prepare you for
what the actual experience is like. You just have to jump into the
water and see if you sink or swim. Luckily, I discovered I'm pretty good
at keeping my head above water (sometimes via the dead man's float).
> Having never been married, I can not speak from first hand
> experience but talking to most of my married friends, it seems that sex
> has dwindled off to close to nothing for most of them after a few years.
Well, there could be as many different reasons for that as there are
people in the world ... but that is far from a universal experience.
There's great sex in miserable marriages and there's miserable sex in
marriages that are otherwise great. Too individual to make a generalization.
> Losing my freedom, having to deal with kids (not too many women around
> who do not want kids), risking losing much of my hard earned assets plus
> future earnings if the marrige does not work, plus no sex on top of all
> that. Thanks but no thanks, I will pass.
No problem. If that's the way you feel, you're much better off being
honest about it. As I said earlier, more people should be.
Nancy G.
(proud of myself for resisting the temptation to make some stereotypical
remark about "oh, you just wait, once you meet the Right Woman you'll change
that tune...")
patrick tang
I have another grape-vine story regarding this 'statistics' and how it
can actually affect a whole country - heard from my company's sales rep
in Israel that the old guards are having fits - seems like with all that
level-playing fields, for the interest of the child etc.etc. the Israeli
reproduction rate is well below 1 - the men are scared stiff of marriage
and having kids (wised up I said), while it's neighbors are having 4, 5,
6 ..... Like somebody said, 'My Gosh! If we don't do something, the
Palestinians, Egytians etc. will just push us into the mediterrian
without one single shot being fired.'
If it can go from 7.8% to 20% in only 15 yrs, and that is before all the
latest rounds of level playing field, interest of the children in the
1990s, just think of what it is going to be like when today's children
and teenagers grow up to be 35 years old and be counted in this
statistics.
So, even if we do nothing, this thing will self-destruct, but not till
after our times.
patrick tang
Derek
nancy g. wrote:
> Why is it assumed that when women make statements about something
> being best for the children, they really are secretly doing it selfishly
> for themselves and don't care about the kids at all? Maybe ... when we
> say we want something for the children ... we really want it for ...
> THE CHILDREN ???? In my own case, I'd *love* to escape from this
> house where we've gone through so much hell in the past couple of years.
> If it was just me, I'd be out of here ... so fast I'd leave a cloud of dust
> in my wake as I ran down the street, like in the Road Runner cartoons.
> But you know something? I *WILL* *NOT* do something like that to my
> kids ... and so I will continue to live in this place that I can't even stand
> to look at any more, until I have found a smaller place that I can afford and
> that isn't falling down around our ears and that actually has heat and hot
> water, and not only that, but I won't make these kids move until I can manage
> to talk about and prepare for moving in such a way that my six-year-old
> actually might *NOT* have her *ENTIRE* life totally disrupted, just a big
> huge part of it.
> Nancy G.
> The Mom
Sounds like you're doing the right thing. I think the "best interest"
argument would have more teeth in it, though, if the law also
recognized non-financial obligations such as emotional continuity (the
sort of thing you're referring to). I'd have no problem if child
support was made contingent upon the CP and NCP living very close to
each other so the NCP could visit several times a week (but not close
enough to get in the CP's way). If the NCP didn't want to live up to
anything but payments, the amount would go up.
The present trend in the law (at least in California) is for the
courts to allow the CP to do anything she wants, including move out of
state so the NCP can never visit. It's hard to argue for best
interests when that's interpreted only to mean finances. It doesn't
sound like you're falling for this, by the way, and hats off to you.
I'm also not talking about the common sense exceptions when the NCP
has been abusive, etc. But best interest means just that, and I think
more men would be amenable to high payments if they knew the courts
would protect their rights to be full parents to their children to the
extent possible. And what about the rights of the CP? Same argument
used before: once you have kids, you give up some of your rights when
it comes to where you live, how much you want your children to see the
other parent, etc. And no one doubts this is in the best interests of
the children.
nancy g.
falc...@starnetinc.com wrote (quoting someone else, I think):
> and if I want to cook
> spaghetti every night and eat it with a screwdriver (snip)
See. Typical man. Sheesh. Doesn't even know it's the SOCKET WRENCH
for eating the spaghetti, the *SCREWDRIVER* is for the Kraft Macaroni and
Cheese!
Sigh. There's just no hope.
Nancy G.
(or was that Kraft *CHEESE* and Macaroni?)
> P.S. I work 55 hours a week and (snip)
Lessee ... little one gets up at seven, older one goes to bed at ten,
hmmm ... that's (counting on fingers here ...) (carry the one ...)
fifteen hours a day, times seven, is ... carry the three ...
I work a hundred and five freakin' hours a week! You think we moms
do this for the glamour or the excitement or the MONEY or something?
Give me a BREAK. I've never even WANTED to get paid for doing this
work, because there's not a guy around who could afford what I'm
worth!!! (And all right, I'll stop now before this thread starts to
sound like that other one, where the guy is figuring out how much
Hamid Wasti
In article <4v6636$h...@news.netusa1.net> jv...@netusa1.net (Van Matre) writes:
>Yes, and he has passed his genes along. He is the childs biological
>father. There's more to life than being a consumer and buying things.
>Our children are our *real* legacy. Some day he may wish he had done
>more, rather that less.
I agree that there is more to life than being a consumer, but how come
children are one's real legacy? There are far better ways to leave a
leagcy than add your name to the list of the billions on this plannet who
procriated and passed along their genes, for better or for worse.
If you are truly interested in leaving your mark in the world, try making
a contribution to the sciences, the society, the arts, the people who are
already in this world. That is far more meaningful than just passing
along your genes for the sake of passing them along. If that is the best
someone can do, then maybe they should do the human race a favor and
eliminate their genes from this global gene pool.
-----Hamid
John Cooley
nancy g. <nan...@tiac.net> wrote:
>jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:
>> I, too, must admit that I have some fear as a guy in Massachusetts about
>> getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
>> until the kid's 23 (college)
>
>Right -- until age 23 *only* if the child is attending college. But if you
>had stayed married, wouldn't you then think it was completely reasonable to
>help support your child while he attended college? Why does it suddenly
>because you are no longer married to the child's mother? Your share of the
>responsibility for YOUR child shouldn't be affected by your marital status!
The way Mass. courts work, a mom can make $15,000 and it doesn't count as
far as C.S. is calculated. Hence, there's quite a few "full time mom's"
with part time jobs. Then the C.S. payments are based almost exclusively
on what dad *can* make. Junior goes to college, dad has to foot the bill
PLUS continue C.S. payments to mom.
>> and starts at roughly 30 percent of what the court says you're *capable*
>> of earning -- not what you *actually* earn.
>
>Not true. Child support *starts* at $50 a month. The Mass. child support
>figures are based on a sliding scale, taking into account the NCP's income
>and the number of children. The minimum, for those who earn under $125 a
>week, is $50 a month. For income of $125 to $200 weekly, the child support
>is 15 percent for one child, 18 percent for two children, 21 percent for
>three children. That "roughly 30 percent" you mention is true **ONLY**
>**IF** you are talking about NCP's with incomes of $500 per week or higher
>and supporting TWO children. And that amount is less if the custodial
>parent earns any income in excess of $15,000.
Try being a guy in Massachusetts and not make AT LEAST $26,000 a year. It's
*real* easy to very quickly fall into the 30 percent bracket. Also, remember
the judge can impute any income he thinks you're possible of making!
>> In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college
>
>Also not true, unless this is part of the separation/divorce agreement that
>you and your spouse work out together and sign before the divorce takes
>place. There is no law requiring the "guy" to pay for college.
>
>> and medical insurance
>
>Again, not true. In most cases the cost of medical insurance is split 50-50
>unless it's included for free in one parent's work benefits. My husband
>and I will be splitting the cost in half, even though his income immediately
>after the divorce will be about four times what mine is.
>
>> plus the wife gets the house.
Again, remember mom's encouraged to NOT work (because Dad will be ordered by
the courts to pay for everything.) Hence, she has no insurance, can't
pay for college, and needs the house "for the kids" because she's a "full
time mom." Note: mothers aren't required to work in Massachusetts as
part of any divorce proceeding; dads are required to pay Child Support
based on the income the court *believes* he can make -- not what he
*actually* earns.
>Well, assuming they've got a pretty good income, they'd pay 30 percent
>for child support and ... what, 27 percent, for taxes? That's 57 percent
>You say they live on 10 percent, so that must mean they are spending
>33 percent of their gross income on their child's college and medical
>expenses?
27 PERCENT FOR TAXES??? Who is *your* accountant?? You obviously only
pay the lowest Federal tax, no State tax, no FICA, no sales taxes, no
excise taxes, no sales taxes... I guess you don't have to pay for
car insurance, either! College expenses are exhorbitant and just
try buying health insurance on your own these days... (A lot isn't
covered on pre-existing conditions if you switch jobs, too!)
I'm basing my arguements that dad makes at least $35,000 a year -- you
seem to be basing yours on people who make $9,000 a year. Hmmm... How
does one live in Mass. on $9,000 a year? Don't even office temps
clear ~$30,000 to ~$35,000 a year? Hmmmm....
>Nancy G.
>this stuff is bad enough as it is ... let's not make it sound
>any worse by distorting the facts!!!
After punching holes in your distorting the facts, I find your closing
rather amusing. Nancy, would you care to tell us how "imputing" works?
- John Cooley
The Fathers Group
Ciccio
"nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> writes:
>Right -- until age 23 *only* if the child is attending college. But if you
>had stayed married, wouldn't you then think it was completely reasonable to
>help support your child while he attended college? Why does it suddenly
>become unacceptable for you to give the same help to the child, simply
>because you are no longer married to the child's mother? Your share of the
>responsibility for YOUR child shouldn't be affected by your marital status!
It doesn't become *unacceptable*, it becomes *unlawful* after a divorce.
That is, parents who are married are able to accept or not accept many social
mores relating to the issues of child rearing. However, after divorce that
choice doesn't exist. This college issue is one example of that. Married
parents can *choose* not to pay for a college education. Indeed, so long as
they provide for the basic necessities of a minor child, they can spend the
remainder of their money as selfishly on themselves as they choose and the
government doesn't interfere. Yet, after a divorce the government interferes
greatly by mandating that a large percentage of their income be for the
children. Moreover, failure to comply is frequently not just a civil matter
but has the sanction of imprisonment.
>Nancy G.
>this stuff is bad enough as it is ... let's not make it sound
>any worse by distorting the facts!!!
I wouldn't characterize the post as a distortion of facts. Perhaps a few of
the substantive issues were overstated by the gentleman who posted about his
apprehensions. However, he greatly understated the bizarre disparate
treatment by the government between parents who married and parents who are
divorced or never married.
Ciccio
falc...@starnetinc.com
: It's too much fun to be single. Hell, I can do anything I please;
:I've heard that married guys have to ask permission to go places. To hell
:with that, it's fun not knowing what state you are going to wake up in,
:and with whom. I don't know how to make a bed, and if I want to cook
:spaghetti every night and eat it with a screwdriver nobody is going to
:complain. Now that's the good life.
Mike, do you have the same red speckled finish on your stove top that
i have (spaghetti sauce) aint it grand :-)
Kevin
P.S. I work 55 hours a week and i'll pick up my underwear and beer
bottles when i'm damned well and ready !!!
Hugh Bonney
Ciccio (f...@netcom.com) wrote:
: "nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> writes:
: >Right -- until age 23 *only* if the child is attending college. But if you
: >had stayed married, wouldn't you then think it was completely reasonable to
: >help support your child while he attended college? Why does it suddenly
: >become unacceptable for you to give the same help to the child, simply
: >because you are no longer married to the child's mother? Your share of the
: >responsibility for YOUR child shouldn't be affected by your marital status!
: It doesn't become *unacceptable*, it becomes *unlawful* after a divorce.
: That is, parents who are married are able to accept or not accept many social
: mores relating to the issues of child rearing. However, after divorce that
: choice doesn't exist. This college issue is one example of that. Married
: parents can *choose* not to pay for a college education. Indeed, so long as
: they provide for the basic necessities of a minor child, they can spend the
: remainder of their money as selfishly on themselves as they choose and the
: government doesn't interfere. Yet, after a divorce the government interferes
: greatly by mandating that a large percentage of their income be for the
: children. Moreover, failure to comply is frequently not just a civil matter
: but has the sanction of imprisonment.
: >this stuff is bad enough as it is ... let's not make it sound
: >any worse by distorting the facts!!!
: I wouldn't characterize the post as a distortion of facts. Perhaps a few of
: the substantive issues were overstated by the gentleman who posted about his
: apprehensions. However, he greatly understated the bizarre disparate
: treatment by the government between parents who married and parents who are
: divorced or never married.
Another issue in this is that many, perhaps most, Americans have
a "standard of living" that's an illusion, whatever it may be. We
spend too much and save too little. An increasing amount of income
is being siphoned off by an ever smaller percentage of the population.
Computers and communications have only begun to shrink the world
and there is an endless supply of people happy to work for a fraction
of US wages. Today's 20-somethings in California may find themselves
more or less retired someday and living in the midst of a population
that is hostile to them and that may actually scapegoat them. This
is laying it on to make the point, but there's a lot to it.
If the law is freezing some of these illusions in concrete, it's
bad news. Many of these parents are going to end their lives
living under a bridge somewhere. Of course this applies especially
to the divorces where the animosity is so overwhelming that the
couple essentially self destructs and makes the lawyers rich.
And for most of the kids around here that I can see, the best
thing anyone could do for them would be to live within walking
or easy bus distance of a library and throw the television set
into the nearest dumpster.
It's true that government intrusion into family life after a point
accomplishes nothing and is done unequally. But isn't that a
result of the fact that government has been intervening increasingly
in the lives of some minority populations? The chickens are just
coming home to roost, basically. The intrusion is turning out to
be one of the causes of the problems it's supposed to solve. F.
Fukuyama's book "Trust" is an interesting, if dry, discussion of
some of the reasons for this.
Hugh ---
Ciccio
falc...@starnetinc.com writes:
>: It's too much fun to be single. Hell, I can do anything I please;
>:I've heard that married guys have to ask permission to go places. To hell
>:with that, it's fun not knowing what state you are going to wake up in,
>:and with whom. I don't know how to make a bed, and if I want to cook
>:spaghetti every night and eat it with a screwdriver nobody is going to
>:complain. Now that's the good life.
>Mike, do you have the same red speckled finish on your stove top that
>i have (spaghetti sauce) aint it grand :-)
>P.S. I work 55 hours a week and i'll pick up my underwear and beer
>bottles when i'm damned well and ready !!!
One of my favorite things about being single is that you can just eat over the
sink. I haven't dirtied a plate in months. Drink milk from the carton.
Drink beer from the can. Hell, I wonder why my place even has a dishwasher.
Ciccio
Jeanne
tso_...@nyc.pipeline.com(Foreigner) wrote:
>--
>Hey .. I'm buying a motorcycle in a couple weeks.. Tell you what, I am
>truly glad to be single. I read these these posts of nightmare stories what
>has happened to some of these guys, see the postings of the whining
>females, and thank God I didn't fall for their crap.
>--
Hey, I'm 28 & single.... I'm also a single mom... the father doesn't
contribute anything nor does he even bother to communicate with me or
his daughter.... I'm not whining... but I can barely afford the
standard bills (food, daycare, clothes, etc). What about the single
parents who's other spouse is a deadbeat?
Jeanne :)
Email: mwa...@sugar-river.net
Webpage: http://www.sugar-river.net/~mwalimu/jeanne.html
vi...@global.california.com
On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Jeanne wrote:
> Hey, I'm 28 & single.... I'm also a single mom... the father doesn't
> contribute anything nor does he even bother to communicate with me or
> his daughter.... I'm not whining... but I can barely afford the
> standard bills (food, daycare, clothes, etc). What about the single
> parents who's other spouse is a deadbeat?
>
>
>
> Jeanne :)
>
Jeanne, I have been there. When my ex and I broke up I still had 3 sons
to raise ALONE. Seems he thought that since he was being divorced, that
meant from the children also. We managed with some help from my parents,
and I got a promotion at work which really helped. The kids are now grown
up and doing quite well. :) I wish you luck Jeanne. It is a tough road.
Chris Priga
Neal C. Wickham wrote:
>
> jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>
> >I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
> >getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
> >the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
> >insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
> >who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
> >taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
>
>
> Yikes!!
>
> I am never going to date a woman from Massachusetts as long as I live
> and will not set foot in the state with out a 12 pack of condoms!
>
> Why doesn't Massachustts just castrate all men a birth and nip the
> problem in the bud? To you guys in Massachusetts... there are other
> countries you know. What is so great about being an American?
>
> Neal
Based on what I'm experiencing, write off the women of California as
well. In future I may date, but I won't marry.
The real question is what do I tell my son, or for that matter my
daughters.
Chris
Hugh Bonney
nancy g. (nan...@tiac.net) wrote:: > [college education payments - snipped]
Indeed, people in, say, China or Manila often know more about the
ins and outs of these laws in the US than most citizens here do.
They may also know a lot of nonsense, but there is a sort of legal
"infrastructure" here that will cheerfully support any sort of fraud
involving marriage and divorce. This thread in general should make
clear that the risk of marrying someone from a third world country
who gets a visa out of it is a seriously risky proposition. You may
think you have met unscrupulous people - in fact you haven't seen
anything yet..
: > Therefore, you shouldn't rely on anything written on this thread as to your
: > particular legal situation.
: Thanks, but believe me, I am *completely* aware of the *huge* "grain of
: salt" required to believe most (if not all) advice found on this or any other
: Usenet group. The particular post I was commenting on, however, was making
: assertions about the laws in my *own* home state, and so I felt qualified
: to comment with at least a little confidence, and also hoped that the original
: poster might have an answer to my question about that same state's laws.
: > (snip) But that isn't the point. The point
: > is that our government has taken it upon itself to micromanage families.
: > Currently our government is having great difficulty effectively doing the
: > duties it was created to do. It sure as heck can't micromanage families
: Amen to that.
: > (snip) However, beyond that the government has
: > no duty to involve itself in parent-child relationships. If anything,
: > it has the duty to refrain from involving itself.
: Amen to that too.
:
: >> Thanks for replying but not flaming.
: > Why would I flame you?
: (snicker) Yeah, like those who typically flame *NEED* a reason?????
: > In the mean time, thank you for the refreshing change.
: Same to you. Isn't it funny sometimes how much in common people can have
Hamid Wasti
In article <32180F...@tiac.net> "nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> writes:
>Those of you who don't have kids, or who are not fortunate enough to feel
>totally close to them, don't have a clue what you're missing.
I hear that all the time from male and female friends with kids. But in
the next sentense they turn around and complain about why they can't do
anything they enoy doing anymore because they don't have the time and or
the money due to the kids and how envious they are of me. Talk about
mixed signals!
>but anyway, even that kind of love sometimes doesn't come CLOSE to the way
>a soggy sticky kid can make you feel.
Frustrated, angry, ready to blow up? Or were you talking about some
other feelings that I have missed?
>Hmmm. Truthfully, I didn't exactly choose ... fate chose for me.
Fate chose it for you 3 times over? Lady we need to talk about these
little things called.........
>> I for one have made the concious decision not to put myself in that
>> position because I do not think I will enjoy being a full time+ slave to
>> my kids.
>
>Very wise of you. I think a lot of this conflict about child support,
>CP vs. NCP, and even just divorce itself, would be resolved a lot easier if
>it were more socially acceptable to say "I don't want kids, I don't think I'd
>be a good parent" and have people BELIEVE and ACCEPT that statement.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Any suggestions on how to make that happen? Most of my relationships have
ended because the woman wanted kids and I didn't. In all cases I was up
front about my wishes but she just did not believe me. 3 months, 6 months
or a year later it hit her like a ton of bricks that I really meant what I
was saying. Then she felt, hurt betrayed, etc. etc.
>> If you chose to be a mom, I think you forfeit your right to
>> complain about the hard work, the hours, etc etc.
>
>(snicker) Hell, NO, you don't forfeit that right!!! That's one of the
>greatest perks of the whole job, the right to go around complaining all
>the time about how tough your life is!!!
If I don't like it, I complain about it AND I want to change it. If
I like it, I don't want to change it and I don't complain. However, if I
am proud of it then I brag about it. Am I confusing bragging with
complaining?
>> I am assuming you did
>> do some research about what you were getting into.
>
>(snicker again) Nothing ... absolutely NOTHING ... can prepare you for
>what the actual experience is like. You just have to jump into the
>water and see if you sink or swim.
I did that too (jumping in the water part). After I realized I could not
swim, I just sank to the bottom and ran like hell till I got to the edge
of the pool. Gave the life guard a heart attack. My pulse was back to
normal long before his. Now I don't go in water deeper than 5' or wear a
life vest. With your analogy to children, sure I would jump right into
that too as long as children come with a 30 day no questions asked retutn
policy. The problem is that they grow so fast that a 30 day old will not
fit where he/she came from :-)
>Nancy G.
>(proud of myself for resisting the temptation to make some stereotypical
>remark about "oh, you just wait, once you meet the Right Woman you'll change
>that tune...")
Thank you very much for your self control, maturity and sense of humor. I
think I have met the right woman, but the children issue has kept the
relationship from going anywhere beyond friendship. She is one of the
smarter ones who realizes that I mean what I am saying.
-----Hamid
Unknown
ha...@netcom.com (Hamid Wasti) wrote:
>I agree that there is more to life than being a consumer, but how come
>children are one's real legacy? There are far better ways to leave a
>leagcy than add your name to the list of the billions on this plannet who
>procriated and passed along their genes, for better or for worse.
>If you are truly interested in leaving your mark in the world, try making
>a contribution to the sciences, the society, the arts, the people who are
>already in this world. That is far more meaningful than just passing
>along your genes for the sake of passing them along. If that is the best
>someone can do, then maybe they should do the human race a favor and
>eliminate their genes from this global gene pool.
Hamid,
you are perfectly right. However, there's a little problem.
We, including our instincts (or emotions, if you prefer that word) are
"designed" for stone age. They aim at life's ulterior
motive---procreation.
In other words, we are designed to raise children. Not only to
copulate and fertilize---there we have some newer tricks to get around
the original purpose---but also to actually have a more or less
permanent mate, have children, raise them, be together with them and
enjoy them. If you forego all this, you will not be entirely happy.
You will feel that something is missing.
This is the reason why humanity hasn't died out after the invention of
The Pill.
Hans-Georg
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Steve Simmons
Mike Ganopoulos writes:
> Plus the fact that there really aren't many advantages to being
>
> married anymore. What's the big deal? People live together and have kids
> all of the time without the benefit of being married. Sure, if you have a
> religious objection to that it is one thing, but not too many people in
> this part of the country have that any more.
>
> It's too much fun to be single. Hell, I can do anything I please;
> I've heard that married guys have to ask permission to go places. To hell
> with that, it's fun not knowing what state you are going to wake up in,
> and with whom. I don't know how to make a bed, and if I want to cook
> spaghetti every night and eat it with a screwdriver nobody is going to
> complain. Now that's the good life.
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please don't have kids if you have this type of mentality.
Most people will tell you that having kids is pure sacrifice.
However, your mentality is one where you don't wish to give up
anything.
You are right.... Marriage is not a necessity. In fact, I would
STRONGLY discourage anyone from getting married unless they plan
to have kids (near or long term).
Marriage is a necessity if you do plan to have kids for the following
reasons:
- Demonstration of commitment. Kids see by your actions. If
you can't demonstrate a commitment to anything or anyone,
they too will avoid commitment and responsibility.
- Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals that
binds forever. Children need both parents (when possible);
however, there is no other legal contract that binds both parents
to a child.
- Experiments are fine for mice but not for kids. Don't go down the
lunatic fringe approach when raising your children. Tried and
proven approaches are usually the best.
Thank you.
Steve Simmons
Steve Simmons
Hamid Wasti wrote:
>> ... think we
>> do this for the glamour or the excitement or the MONEY or something?
> Actually, I am not sure why you do it?
Hmmmmmm... Why did your mom do it???
It is a choice! I respect people like you who make the decision
NOT to raise kids before the fact (rather than after the fact).
Kids are pure work. Here is an argument that may relate to you.
In college, there is no reason to work.. After all, no one will
fire you. Do just enough to get by... Do you really believe that
an employer cares that you got a C+ in Shakespeare Lit!!?!?
However, many of you do work hard for a personal satisfaction.
You like see those "A"s on your papers.
It is the same with being a parent. It is all work. However, you
do a get a personal satisfaction. You like to talk about your
kids most recent activities.
Thank you.
Steve Simmons
Stefan Mochnacki
In article <321806...@ptang.com>, patrick tang <pat...@ptang.com> wrote:
>
>If it can go from 7.8% to 20% in only 15 yrs, and that is before all the
>latest rounds of level playing field, interest of the children in the
>1990s, just think of what it is going to be like when today's children
>and teenagers grow up to be 35 years old and be counted in this
>statistics.
>
There is a much simpler explanation for the increase in the proportion
of never-married under-35 men: demographics. We are talking here about the
cohort following the baby-boom, when birth-rates plunged. That means
there are fewer younger womem but more older guys: the fewer younger guys
get "left out" of the equation, since women tend to marry older guys.
There's been quite a bit written on this in the press recently. A
consequence of this "woman shortage" is expected to be a more
conservative, family-oriented social paradigm in the coming years,
with younger men striving very hard to find and marry women.
--
Stefan W. Mochnacki ste...@centaur.astro.utoronto.ca "Somewhere"
* If you feed the fish, please don't complain! *
==============At Ontario Place, 1 May - Thanksgiving===================
John Cooley
nancy g. <nan...@tiac.net> wrote:
>Well, yeah, the statement "child support starts at 30 percent" was definitely
>what I would call a LARGE overstatement. I guess the line between
>"overstatement" and "distortion" can be seen differently by different people.
Nancey this is complete bunk. Who do you know in Massachusetts that is not
earning *at least* $26,000 a year? (-- which is the point where Child Support
goes to 30 percent.) Sheesh! Even an office temp can make $35 K -- and
needs to do so just to make ends meet.
Anyway, I think you're missing the key point to my entire arguement: by
having divorce laws & customs so grossly anti-father (you may dispute the
details, Nancy, but the basic fact remains that moms are highly favored
in Massachusetts courts), it vastly increases the chance that dad will
be forced to "skip out" on his obligations because to keep them means
financial servitude and no time to know his own kids anyway. Hence the
kids lose a father and $$$. If the laws & divorce customs were put more
into balance (like dads getting more than 2 weekends a month to see his
own kids and enough of his own money to be able to have a place for the
kids to visit) the kids, dad, and even mom indirectly would benefit from
the change! The Fathers Group is for reasonable divorces where *everyone*
wins. That even means we're against divorces where moms are completely
screwed over by a vindictive judge. (Rare, but it happens.) The goal
is to try to give *our* kids and *ourselves* (dads & moms) as positive a
divorce as possible. Right now, in Massachusetts, the courts are heavily
skewed in favor of moms-take-all.
dew
In article <3217F9...@magnus.acs.ohio_state.edu>,
CVance <cva...@magnus.acs.ohio_state.edu> wrote:
}I've seen it in other newsgroups, too. Regardless
}of affiliation, our national political conscious is focused not on
}solutions but on pointing accusatory fingers. We align ourselves with a
}party or an ideology and then indulge in self-righteous soapboxing.
}Taking our cue from radioheads who delight their audience by badgering,
}and then hanging up on, differently minded callers, we have allowed
}political discourse to degenerate into a shouting match. We no longer
}listen because we only want to be heard.
This is the mantra of the status-quo. Let's not rock the boat. Talk
about reform, about doing the right thing regardless of the "system",
but heaven forbid, don't protest and start talking to representatives in
the legislature, they might actually change the law, and we definitely
don't want that! The last 30 years have shown that if you make a big
enough fuss, politicians will change the laws, as witness the civil
rights and feminists movements.
}The issues brought up in this newsgroups involve more than a cursory
}decision that all men are deadbeats or all moms are greedy manipulators.
}So long as this either/or point is the focus of debate the real problems
}will never be solved.
Yeah, we will just all work together to do the right thing, until you
get to family court and find out she isn't so willing to do the right
thing anymore and you're screwed. To talk about change without changing
the law is meaningless.
Hamid Wasti
In article <4v9gjk$1...@arl-news-svc-2.compuserve.com> (Hans-Georg Michna) writes:
>We, including our instincts (or emotions, if you prefer that word) are
>"designed" for stone age. They aim at life's ulterior motive---procreation.
I wonder if that argument would hold up as a defense for rape. Sorry
your honor, I was just doing the instinctual thing that I am "designed"
to do. In my opinion, it is sad and sorry life whose only goal is to
procreate.
>If you forego all this, you will not be entirely happy.
>You will feel that something is missing.
Thanks for your concern for my happiness. I am glad someone knows what
will make me happy in life. Now lets pass a law to make sure that people
like me do not live our lives unhapilly. Marige and children will be
required by law. It will be illeagel to die without having raised at
least two kids. Breaking this law will be punishible by death.
-----Hamid
Mark Evans
Hugh Bonney (hbo...@netcom.com) wrote:
: nancy g. (nan...@tiac.net) wrote:
: : Ciccio wrote:
: : > "nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> writes:
: : > [college education payments - snipped]
: : > Nancy, this is being cross-posted all over the USA, if not the world.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Indeed, people in, say, China or Manila often know more about the
: ins and outs of these laws in the US than most citizens here do.
It's called being able to view objectivly.
: They may also know a lot of nonsense, but there is a sort of legal
: "infrastructure" here that will cheerfully support any sort of fraud
: involving marriage and divorce. This thread in general should make
: clear that the risk of marrying someone from a third world country
You are changing the topic.
: who gets a visa out of it is a seriously risky proposition. You may
Derek
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
>
> ha...@netcom.com (Hamid Wasti) wrote:
>
> >I agree that there is more to life than being a consumer, but how come
> >children are one's real legacy? There are far better ways to leave a
> >leagcy than add your name to the list of the billions on this plannet who
> >procriated and passed along their genes, for better or for worse.
>
> >If you are truly interested in leaving your mark in the world, try making
> >a contribution to the sciences, the society, the arts, the people who are
> >already in this world. That is far more meaningful than just passing
> >along your genes for the sake of passing them along. If that is the best
> >someone can do, then maybe they should do the human race a favor and
> >eliminate their genes from this global gene pool.
>
> Hamid,
>
> you are perfectly right. However, there's a little problem.
>
> "designed" for stone age. They aim at life's ulterior
> motive---procreation.
There's a much better answer. Most people's contributions to science,
the arts, etc. aren't worth squat. Can anyone here say they couldn't
be replaced by someone else at their job in a second? And how many
people really devote themselves to helping those in trouble who are
around them? Very few.
Raising children can be justified on at least three grounds. First,
it's fun. Second, if you think people's purpose in life is to learn
(which admittedly might be a spiritual concept) there's no better way
to learn about people or the meaning of life than to raise a child.
One doesn't need these insights in order to live a full life, but I
think it is fair to say that there are insights which come from
raising children which come from no where else.
Finally, the trick isn't just to procreate, it's to raise happy and
healthy individuals. I think we all know that childhood has a lot to
do with what individuals are able to do later. Parenthood therefore
becomes (or can become) the way in which people contribute directly to
the happiness of others. We've all benefitted from this in some way
or another. That's not a reason to have children, but it is one not
to put parents down.
patrick tang
Stefan Mochnacki wrote:
> >
>
> There is a much simpler explanation for the increase in the proportion
> of never-married under-35 men: demographics. We are talking here about the
> cohort following the baby-boom, when birth-rates plunged. That means
> there are fewer younger womem but more older guys: the fewer younger guys
> get "left out" of the equation, since women tend to marry older guys.
>
> There's been quite a bit written on this in the press recently. A
> consequence of this "woman shortage" is expected to be a more
> conservative, family-oriented social paradigm in the coming years,
> with younger men striving very hard to find and marry women.
From personal experience, this is not true - when I first started out
working 18 yrs ago, looking for available women was hard - generally the
first thing you look at when you meet a pretty woman is to look for the
ring. Today, at least around Silicon Valley in CA, forget looking at
the ring, it's a rarity if one finds that. "woman shortage" - hardly -
there are pretty women all around. Unmarried too. Now they might be
living with someone, but generally they are not married and generally
have not 'dates' set either.
This has been the observation among my friends and myself for a long
time now, so that Boston Globe article came as no surprise. The younger
men 'striving very hard' - might be. But probably it's hormones talking
and not marriage driven.
patrick tang
Ann M. Davis
>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes:
|>
|> Well, keep in mind that Massachusetts is the last great bastion of
|> "liberalism" in America. Weld (GOP) has ben guv for less than 10
|> years, so much of the damage of all those years of radical liberal
|> leadership from the likes of Dukakis, et. al., is yet to be undone.
Umm, you better check up on your Massachusetts politics before
making blanket statements. Weld's first commercial for his senate
race was about all the wonderful things Weld has done to increase
child support collection in the state of Massagachusetts.
This includes a law revoking the licenses of fathers in arrears.
Recently he proposed a bill for a mandatory 1 year jail sentence
for all fathers owing more than $5000.
At least Kerry, Weld's opponent is a divorced father.
Ann
Tolovana
Stefan Mochnacki <ste...@helios.physics> wrote in article
<DwDoM...@info.physics.utoronto.ca>...
> There's been quite a bit written on this in the press recently. A
> consequence of this "woman shortage" is expected to be a more
> conservative, family-oriented social paradigm in the coming years,
> with younger men striving very hard to find and marry women.
Men are also (if you take the data from the census to be acurate) more
likely to remarry than are women.
(I was surprised by this!)
Ken Laing
John Cooley wrote:
>
> Foreigner <tso_...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
> >In divorce the vast majority of men not only lose most their assests, but
> >their children as well. I am Un-Married and Without kids and intend to
> >stay that way as long as the laws tend to work against me.. Oh.. and I
> >have an excellent Job. I pity these poor guys who thought Marriage would
> >be forever and ever... I knew better.
>
> I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
> olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
>
> I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
> getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
> until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
> the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
> earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
> insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
> who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
> taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
>
> - John Cooley
Even if you live together long enough you essentially become married,
common law married, but it still can entail the Child support, alimony
and the whole mess; well not as much as divorce but still....
Essentially you can avoid women, or take your chances
hope that you never have a problem requiring you to go through the
biased
legal system. *sigh*
--
...........................................................................
The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when
one
will do. -Thomas Jefferson
Ken Laing
Mary Ellen Froning wrote:
>
> In article <4v5rdt$8...@paperboy.ids.net>,
> Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> >Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@toledo.emi.net) wrote:
> >: Plus the fact that there really aren't many advantages to being
> >: married anymore. What's the big deal? People live together and have kids
> >
> >to community property statutes that give the woman half of everything,
> >including items owned prior to the marriage.
> Let's not forget that it affords men advantages too. Like inherritence
> rights automatic custody of the chilren after death of the mother (which
This would seem to be another bias in the system. I bet if the father
dies
the mother gets automatic custody!
> is not true if the parents are not married) Not to mention rights to the
> children period.
What do you mean by this? You mean that with out marriage the father
has no
rights to the child? Doesn't that seem biased to you either?
> Plus it affords the children of the union certain
> rights too. Marriage can also let you make decisions if your partner is
> dying that you would not be able to do if you're living together even if
> it has been a longstanding relationship. Why do you think gays want the
> right to get married?
Ken
Ross Williams
nancy g. (nan...@tiac.net) wrote:
: John Cooley wrote:
: > Then the C.S. payments are based almost exclusively
: > on what dad *can* make.
: Based on Dad's level of education, work history, age, current employment,
: medical history, etc.
: > Junior goes to college, dad has to foot the bill
: > PLUS continue C.S. payments to mom.
: As I said in another reply to someone in this thread, it's the "HAS TO
: foot the bill" part that's confusing me. Is it actually a LAW that the
: NCP *must* pay tuition for college? Are there *any* limits or restrictions?
: Is it based on the NCP's income? The CP's income? The total family income?
: The total cost of tuition? I have not seen this mentioned in any reading I've
: done, and we were told by our mediator that the wording in the divorce agreement
: about college tuition can be "very flexible" as long as we both agree to it.
Nancy, I've been following your trail here for a while, and first:
congratulations on taking the responsible and mature route through
divorce, i.e., mediation. I don't know if MA requires mediation as a
first step or not, but suffice to say, it doesn't matter. People going
through divorce don't have to be mature if they don't want to be.
Second, you've got a wholly naive understanding of the way the process
works outside of your specific circumstances. Which is, in a way, very
good for you, because ignorance really is sometimes bliss, and if you
don't know how the system can be abused, chances are less that you would
abuse them.
That said, let me tell you how the system is set up. We got your divorce
laws, right? The law is The Law, ain't it?
So sorry; not in divorce, they aren't. Divorce occurs in a a court
process called Equity, in which the judge has what is called Judicial
Discretion. This means, effectively, that the judge gets to decide what
parts of the law are more important, which parts will be enforced and
even whether or not he will enforce *any* part of the law and not replace
it with his own "law". Under Equity, The Law is what the judge says it
is.
All this discussion about NCPs paying college tuition being a part of the
law, and does the law say he "has" to, or does it just say that the
parents decide on their own ... bushwa.
The law is what the judge says it is.
For their part, judges are more than willing to let divorcing parents
decide on their own how their divorce is to be adjudicated -- within
certain parameters, of course, and it should go without saying that those
parameters are what the specific judge in question *says* they shall be.
Mediated setlements such as your own is heading towards saves the judge a
lot of time and probably (if he has a conscience) much anguish. It
*definitley* saves his court calender from the outrage of having to
reschedule tee times.
But you might, if the interest strikes, wish to latch onto a non-mediated
divorce participant and do some in-depth investigation. You will likely
(if *you* have a conscience) be quite offended at the high-handed,
officious and just plain rude treatment that divorcing people are subject
to simply because they are getting divorced.
But all of this notwithstanding, here's something to think about for a
while: The Law has these numbers and charts and formulas describing how
much you and your X2B are to spend on your child. "Normal" parents of
'X' income spend 'Y' dollars per child, etc.
1) find one "normal" or "average" parent...
2) #1 can't be done, try as anyone might;
3) where were these state "recommended expenditure" charts when the
family was intact?
Best of luck to you.
-rw
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <01bb8e2f$18680d20$751e...@snowwhite.ohsu.edu> "Tolovana"
------------------------------------------
I'm not!
Lefty
Bill Hutchins
Foreigner wrote:
>
> On Aug 17, 1996 17:45:24 in article <Re: Under 35, in 1980 7.8 percent
> never married, 1995 it's 19.2 percent!>, 'mg65...@toledo.emi.net (Mike
> Ganopoulos)' wrote:
>
>
> >John Cooley (jco...@world.std.com) wrote:
> >: Foreigner <tso_...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
> >: >In divorce the vast majority of men not only lose most their assests,
> but
> >: >their children as well. I am Un-Married and Without kids and intend to
>
> >: >stay that way as long as the laws tend to work against me.. Oh.. and I
>
> >: >have an excellent Job. I pity these poor guys who thought Marriage
> would
> >: >be forever and ever... I knew better.
> >
> >: I just read in a recent Boston Globe that in 1980 7.8 percent of 35 year
>
> >: olds had never married; in 1995 this has jumped to 19.2 percent! Whoa!
> >
> >: I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
> >: getting married.
> >
> >
> >Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
> >: until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
> >: the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
> >: earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
> >: insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
> >: who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child
> Support,
> >: taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
> >
> >married anymore. What's the big deal? People live together and have kids
>
> >religious objection to that it is one thing, but not too many people in
> >this part of the country have that any more.
> >
> >It's too much fun to be single. Hell, I can do anything I please;
> >I've heard that married guys have to ask permission to go places. To hell
>
> >with that, it's fun not knowing what state you are going to wake up in,
> >and with whom. I don't know how to make a bed, and if I want to cook
> >spaghetti every night and eat it with a screwdriver nobody is going to
> >complain. Now that's the good life.
> >
> >Mike Ganopoulos
> >http://www.emi.net/~mg655321
> >
> --
> Hey .. I'm buying a motorcycle in a couple weeks.. Tell you what, I am
> truly glad to be single. I read these these posts of nightmare stories what
> has happened to some of these guys, see the postings of the whining
> females, and thank God I didn't fall for their crap.
> --
Ken Laing
Richard Bennett wrote:
>
> Esteemed zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) did proclaim:
>
> > Well, keep in mind that Massachusetts is the last great bastion of
> > "liberalism" in America. Weld (GOP) has ben guv for less than 10
> > years, so much of the damage of all those years of radical liberal
> > leadership from the likes of Dukakis, et. al., is yet to be undone.
>
> for as many years since we don't have the mandate for college support. It's
> a question of divorce laws passed by democrats with a dirty conscience about
> all the office babes they've been boffing down through the years, and a few
> additional man-haters to tip the balance.
Actually it's about spineless politicians who bend with whatever
political breeze is blowing, anything to get or save votes. It's also
about
a society that is too caught up on being politically correct to actually
think about being correct. The feminist lobby groups are all about
increasing
the rights, benefits, and biases in favour of females and why should
they be expected to do anything else, that's their mandate - not to
promote equality but to promote
the benefits to females. It would be much more even if the
organizations where
mandated to equality instead and the cause had a name that wasn't
overtly sexist.
Failing that there would be at least balance if lobby groups of equal
power existed
for mens issue (masculinists?), but this isn't politically correct
and are labelled sexist (pot - kettle - black). Until society accepts
that it is
ok for the males of the species to speak up for their rights also I fear
the situation will only get worse.
Paul Schuegraf
Grasshopper <Grass...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>[snip]
Bravo for coming out and telling us what really happened. My only
question is in relation to your saying that your ex-girlfriend is a
VERY religious person... I would have to question that in regards to
what you've said of her behaviour.
Regards,
Paul
__
~Midnight is where the day begins...~
John Cooley
Ann M. Davis <a...@space.mit.edu> wrote:
>Umm, you better check up on your Massachusetts politics before
>making blanket statements. Weld's first commercial for his senate
>race was about all the wonderful things Weld has done to increase
>child support collection in the state of Massagachusetts.
>This includes a law revoking the licenses of fathers in arrears.
>Recently he proposed a bill for a mandatory 1 year jail sentence
>for all fathers owing more than $5000.
>
>At least Kerry, Weld's opponent is a divorced father.
>
> Ann
Also, our dear Bill Weld has proposed legislation that punishes men who
dispute the paternity of kids they or may not have fathered. Bill's
trying to go big guns pandering to the women's vote.
rfa...@phoenix.net
In <4vacts$i...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, a...@space.mit.edu (Ann M. Davis) writes:
[snip]
>Umm, you better check up on your Massachusetts politics before
>making blanket statements. Weld's first commercial for his senate
>race was about all the wonderful things Weld has done to increase
>child support collection in the state of Massagachusetts.
>This includes a law revoking the licenses of fathers in arrears.
>Recently he proposed a bill for a mandatory 1 year jail sentence
>for all fathers owing more than $5000.
A jail sentance of fathers in arrears on child support would be a great way
to get a lot of homeless men a place to live.
-Fabian
Mary Ellen Froning
In article <01bb8e2f$18680d20$751e...@snowwhite.ohsu.edu>,
Tolovana <tolo...@industrial.com> wrote:
>Stefan Mochnacki <ste...@helios.physics> wrote in article
><DwDoM...@info.physics.utoronto.ca>...
>
>> There's been quite a bit written on this in the press recently. A
>> consequence of this "woman shortage" is expected to be a more
>> conservative, family-oriented social paradigm in the coming years,
>> with younger men striving very hard to find and marry women.
>
>Men are also (if you take the data from the census to be acurate) more
>likely to remarry than are women.
>(I was surprised by this!)
>
not remarrying after I divorce I thought that there was a whole
catergory that they didn't consider. That is the women who choose NOT to
remarry. Even though marriage in this country is "supposed to be
egalitarian in fact it is in most cases not. Women end up not only doing
the housework they also are expected to have a paying job. I know in my
case (I'm divorced) that I have thought long and hard about remarrying.
I probably won't, simply because if I have to be doing everything I'm
already doing, I don't want to be doing something for a male who is supposed to
be an adult but acts like the wife is supposed to be catering to their
evey whim. I'd rather do it alone thanks!
Men want to remarry and in fact do because they want someone to take
care of them.
--
Mary Ellen Froning
mfro...@iastate.edu
In women hot flashes are surges of POWER
Pete Peterson
In article <4vacts$i...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> a...@space.mit.edu (Ann M. Davis) writes:
>Weld's first commercial for his senate
>race was about all the wonderful things Weld has done to increase
>child support collection in the state of Massagachusetts.
>This includes a law revoking the licenses of fathers in arrears.
Actually, the commercial didn't say that the law would "revoke" the
licenses, the apparently ignorant woman in the commercial said that they
would "revocate" the licenses. I shuddered every time I heard that
commercial. I was astonished that the people who made the commercial would
actually run it.
Perhaps they wanted to invocate their right to make themselves appear as
fools or wanted to provocate a discussion of proper usage. It certainly
evocated a negative reaction from me.
pete peterson
r...@genrad.com
+1-508-287-7478 (GenRad); +1-508-256-5829 (Home: Chelmsford, MA)
+1-508-287-7007 (FAX)
Mark Evans
Ross Williams (rwil...@csc.com) wrote:
:
: That said, let me tell you how the system is set up. We got your divorce
:
: So sorry; not in divorce, they aren't. Divorce occurs in a a court
: process called Equity, in which the judge has what is called Judicial
: Discretion. This means, effectively, that the judge gets to decide what
: parts of the law are more important, which parts will be enforced and
: even whether or not he will enforce *any* part of the law and not replace
: it with his own "law". Under Equity, The Law is what the judge says it
: is.
Unless you can get a "higher" judge to say it's something else. But many
people do not like to go against one of their own class...
: All this discussion about NCPs paying college tuition being a part of the
: law, and does the law say he "has" to, or does it just say that the
: parents decide on their own ... bushwa.
:
: The law is what the judge says it is.
:
: For their part, judges are more than willing to let divorcing parents
: decide on their own how their divorce is to be adjudicated -- within
: certain parameters, of course, and it should go without saying that those
: parameters are what the specific judge in question *says* they shall be.
: Mediated setlements such as your own is heading towards saves the judge a
: lot of time and probably (if he has a conscience) much anguish. It
But only so long as they are the "right" settlements from their POV.
Somone reach the "wrong" decision and the judge might well act punitivly.
: *definitley* saves his court calender from the outrage of having to
: reschedule tee times.
Unknown
sim...@bnr.ca (Steve Simmons) wrote:
>You are right.... Marriage is not a necessity. In fact, I would
>STRONGLY discourage anyone from getting married unless they plan
>to have kids (near or long term).
>Marriage is a necessity if you do plan to have kids...
Steve,
I always thought, and still do, that the purpose of marriage is to
raise children. Apart, maybe, from tax considerations <grin>.
Besides, which woman would marry somebody who wants to eat his
spaghetti with a screwdriver anyway? <grin>
Hans-Georg
Unknown
Derek <de...@kincyb.com> wrote:
>There's a much better answer. ...
>Raising children can be justified on at least three grounds. First,
>it's fun. ...
Derek,
"it's fun" is just shorthand for what I already wrote, that our
instincts (or emotions) are designed that way. Essentially it means
the same.
So we agree.
Hans-Georg
Xochi Zen
> About getting married? You should tell them that it is a lifetime
>commitment that shouldn't be taken lightly; that they should not get married
>unless they are "sure" it will be a lifetime marriage and they are
That's good advice. Marriage should *not* be taken lightly.
>"sure" that their parnter is "sure". You should also tell them that
>marriages between two virgins have a much higher success rate than
>other marriages. You can also tell them that the easy availability
I haven't been following this thread, so my apologies if I'm
missing the mark. But I suspect that the reason why marriage
between two virgins would have a higher success rate might be due to
the fact that:
A. the virginity was probably fueled by religious belief.
B. If (B), bucking one of the strongest forces in nature: sex,
then the person probably also has a strong disincentive against
divorce... with religious belief as its foundation... i.e. "burning
in the fires of hell" as (zealous) catholics believe. Sadly, these
are the folks that probably also stay in abusive relationships
because they've already made a committment "in the eyes of God." ---
one of the sad results of moral absolutism.
>of divorce in this country has cheapened the "lifetime commitment"
>promise made in nearly every marriage ceremony. You can also tell them
I would suggest living together rather than marriage. At least on
a trial basis. I don't know what to think of the break-down of the
family. It's sad, but I think it's fueled more by our global economy,
and greed in general. I wish Americans would wise-up and demand 30
hour work weeks and/or job sharing (as the Europeans have done), rather
than trying to live beyond their means, with both parents working one
or more jobs, while their children suffer.
I think far too many work themselves to death to pay for "show case"
homes that, ironically, they can barely enjoy because they're working
such long hours. The rich executives who have full-time nannies aren't
even raising their own children. Oh, they spend time with their kids
on weekends? Please. I think the most loving thing a parent can do for
their children is to work less hours and spend more time with them.
- Xochi
--
| | "I am a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in |
| Xochi Zen | a tortilla." - Xochi Zen |
| x...@apocalypse.org | |
<----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Grass...@ll.mit.edu
It seems that she is only VERY religious when it is in her best
interest.
It also seems for three months it was in her best interest to suspend my
visitation with my daughter because of various reasons, i.e she was mad
at me.
She finally called and stated that she wants me to start visting my
daughter again,
this has made me so happy you can't imagine.
Regards,
Grasshopper
G. Mark Stewart
Neal C. Wickham (nwic...@indirect.com) wrote:
: jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
[...]
: I am never going to date a woman from Massachusetts as long as I live
: and will not set foot in the state with out a 12 pack of condoms!
: Why doesn't Massachustts just castrate all men a birth and nip the
: problem in the bud? To you guys in Massachusetts... there are other
: countries you know. What is so great about being an American?
For one thing, not having to ask that question.
Ross Williams
vi...@global.california.com wrote:
: On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Jeanne wrote:
: > Hey, I'm 28 & single.... I'm also a single mom... the father doesn't
: > contribute anything nor does he even bother to communicate with me or
: Jeanne, I have been there. When my ex and I broke up I still had 3 sons
: to raise ALONE. Seems he thought that since he was being divorced, that
: meant from the children also. We managed with some help from my parents,
: and I got a promotion at work which really helped. The kids are now grown
: up and doing quite well. :) I wish you luck Jeanne. It is a tough road.
Well, to the both'a yuz, I'm sorry you're in the predicaments you
are/were in.
However, I'd caution you and the causual reader that the notion that
"since he was being divorced, that meant from the children also" doesn't
pop out of nowhere. SOMEthing has to put this idea in an absent parent's
mind.
Granted, this is often the result of selfish desires on his part, but we
are finding out that just as often, if not *more* often, this
disappearing act is the result of latent or sometimes even manifest
statements and actions by the ex-wife and the courts and society in
general. Divorced men are having their "parental responsibility" framed
for them in terms of financial contributions. Usually this framing is
termed the higher priority, sometimes it is termed the only priority.
And for every "irresponsible" father you can find who thinks that all
anyone wants of him is a pound of his wallet-flesh, there is a judge or
ex-wife who only wants that pound out of some man.
Best of luck to the two of you.
-rw
Bruce Varney
Chris Priga <chr...@apple.com> writes:
+> >I, too, must admit that I have some fear a a guy in Massachusetts about
+> >getting married. Here, if you get a divorce, Child Support payments go
+> >until the kid's 23 (college) and starts at roughly 30 percent of what
+> >the court says you're *capable* of earning -- not what you *actually*
+> >earn. In addition, the guy pays for the kid's college and medical
+> >insurance plus the wife gets the house. I know plenty of divorced dads
+> >who have to live off of 10 percent of their income because of Child Support,
+> >taxes, and their kids college/medical costs.
The answer (tm): don't get divorced.
+Based on what I'm experiencing, write off the women of California as
+well.
As crazy as this may seem, it's possible for a couple in
California to remain married; I know, I know, impossible you say.
But I assure you that I know couples that live in California that
have not (and will not) divorced.
+In future I may date, but I won't marry.
+The real question is what do I tell my son, or for that matter my
+daughters.
About getting married? You should tell them that it is a lifetime
commitment that shouldn't be taken lightly; that they should not get married
unless they are "sure" it will be a lifetime marriage and they are
"sure" that their parnter is "sure". You should also tell them that
marriages between two virgins have a much higher success rate than
other marriages. You can also tell them that the easy availability
of divorce in this country has cheapened the "lifetime commitment"
promise made in nearly every marriage ceremony. You can also tell them
that parents who have children living at home and who get divorced
are pretty selfish people, because divorce is not in the best
interests of the children (unless one spouse is abusive, of course).
TGM
Dean Esmay
I would think that being a virgin before marriage would increase the
chances of marital success not so much because it's tied to religious
belief, but because sexual encounters with multiple partners tend in most
cases to cheapen future encounters with others, and to lead to
expectations that the next person might not be able to meet.
Let's say you have a lover who's the best you've ever had who you break up
with, then fall in love with someone who is great in most ways but isn't
as great in the sack.
Or let's say you've simply had enough out-of-wedlock sex that you no
longer emotionally feel that sex binds you to another person.
No, I think that even leaving the question of religion out of it, I think
sex before marriage probably just isn't a good idea. The religious folks
are mostly right.
Note, I'm saying this as a married man who had numerous sexual partners
before marriage. I've come to the conclusion in retrospect that most of
what I did before marrying Rosemary was not particularly good for me.
--
Dean Esmay, es...@syndicomm.com http://www.syndicomm.com/esmay
Ken Laing
Gee, have a certain bias against men? You make us sound like we are
all children incapable of taking care of ourselves! I wonder what sort
of reaction I would get if I made a statement saying that women needed a
a man to take care of them? Perhaps it's just the men you choose to go
out
with that are like this? Or, excuse me for being a bit harsher, perhaps
your
personalitydrives away self relient men. A third possibility might be
that
a growing portion of the self-relient men are realizing that marriage
has no
benefit for them.
Ken
...........................................................................
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes
but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
David B. Greene
ha...@netcom.com (Hamid Wasti) says:
>(Hans-Georg Michna) writes:
>
>>We, including our instincts (or emotions, if you prefer that word) are
>>"designed" for stone age. They aim at life's ulterior motive---procreation.
>
>your honor, I was just doing the instinctual thing that I am "designed"
>to do. In my opinion, it is sad and sorry life whose only goal is to
>procreate.
I suppose the "selfish gene" theory could be used to justify it.
>>If you forego all this, you will not be entirely happy.
>>You will feel that something is missing.
>
>Thanks for your concern for my happiness. I am glad someone knows what
>will make me happy in life. Now lets pass a law to make sure that people
>like me do not live our lives unhapilly. Marige and children will be
>required by law. It will be illeagel to die without having raised at
>least two kids. Breaking this law will be punishible by death.
How many years do you get to try before conviction?
G. Mark Stewart
Richard Bennett (Ric...@bennett.com) wrote:
: Esteemed zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) did proclaim:
: > Well, keep in mind that Massachusetts is the last great bastion of
: > "liberalism" in America. Weld (GOP) has ben guv for less than 10
: > years, so much of the damage of all those years of radical liberal
: > leadership from the likes of Dukakis, et. al., is yet to be undone.
: California is more generous with wife-support than Massachusetts, though not
: for as many years since we don't have the mandate for college support. It's
: a question of divorce laws passed by democrats with a dirty conscience about
: all the office babes they've been boffing down through the years, and a few
: additional man-haters to tip the balance.
: New York also sucks.
Does it ever.
I love that place.
Hamid Wasti
In article <4vfok7$n...@asylum.apocalypse.org> x...@apocalypse.org (Xochi Zen) writes:
>
>>of divorce in this country has cheapened the "lifetime commitment"
>>promise made in nearly every marriage ceremony. You can also tell them
>
>
> a trial basis.
I have rarely seen this type of a trial work out. When most people are
"testing" things out, they are on their best behavious becuase they know
that they are being tested as well. Once the test is done and they pass,
then they can get back to their normal self. In the mean time, both
parties have a false expectation of the other and it get even harder to
face the reality. In addition to telling the guy that she does not like
it when he leaves the top off the toothpaste, she also has to explain why
she did not say anything for the last year when they were living together
and not married.
As part of being absolutely sure that you want to get married, you must
have a high level of commitment to make it work. Just trying out several
different partners until one finds one that fits usually does not work.
On ther other hand, trying out a lot of partners could be fun as well :)
I can not say about marrige, but I can draw a strong analogy about
business. I "tested" out consulting on the side for a couple of years
before taking the plunge to becoming a full time consultant. When I quit
my job and got in for real and made a commitment, I realized that things
we very different than what they were in the trial period. There was no
safety rope of a regular income (I could just move out if it does not work
out), I was no longer in a position to say no to customers who I did not
feel like working with, my social life at work disappeared when I started
working alone, work which was fun because I was thinking about the "play
money" it would bring in all of a sudden became routine because it was now
bringing in "bill paying money" (I can take this becuase are working
towards the goal/reward of marrige rather than do I have to deal with
this for the rest of my life).
Having no experience with living together, I can not provide analogies to
all the living together issues, but I am sure people get the picture. In
any case, I had made a commitment to my business and I am still alive and
kicking and things are looking up. If I had as hard a time before I had
made a commitment, I would have bailed out of the trial period and tried
something else.
-----Hamid
Ann Sheehan
I think I'm getting in on this a little late but: I know several women in
MA who are paying thier ex's insurance, support, etc. As for divorcing
when there are kids at home only if there is abuse, I want to offer IMHO
that children sense when parents are unhappy and can spend their whole
lives trying to fix it and balming themsleves when they can't. When the
parents finally do divorce after 20 years, they feel even more acultely
that they were to blame. There is a study from somewhere that indciated
that adult children found it harder to accept divorcing parents after
they were grown than younger ones did: the young ones learn to adapt and
have time torealize they are not at fault.
Ann
Ann Sheehan
x...@apocalypse.org (Xochi Zen) wrote:
>> About getting married? You should tell them that it is a lifetime
>>commitment that shouldn't be taken lightly; that they should not get married
>>unless they are "sure" it will be a lifetime marriage and they are
>
>
>>marriages between two virgins have a much higher success rate than
>
>
> I haven't been following this thread, so my apologies if I'm
> missing the mark. But I suspect that the reason why marriage
> between two virgins would have a higher success rate might be due to
> the fact that:
>
> A. the virginity was probably fueled by religious belief.
> B. If (B), bucking one of the strongest forces in nature: sex,
> then the person probably also has a strong disincentive against
> divorce... with religious belief as its foundation... i.e. "burning
> in the fires of hell" as (zealous) catholics believe. Sadly, these
> are the folks that probably also stay in abusive relationships
> because they've already made a committment "in the eyes of God." ---
> one of the sad results of moral absolutism.
>
>
>>promise made in nearly every marriage ceremony. You can also tell them
>
>
> I would suggest living together rather than marriage. At least on
> family. It's sad, but I think it's fueled more by our global economy,
> and greed in general. I wish Americans would wise-up and demand 30
> hour work weeks and/or job sharing (as the Europeans have done), rather
> than trying to live beyond their means, with both parents working one
> or more jobs, while their children suffer.
>
> I think far too many work themselves to death to pay for "show case"
> homes that, ironically, they can barely enjoy because they're working
> such long hours. The rich executives who have full-time nannies aren't
> even raising their own children. Oh, they spend time with their kids
> on weekends? Please. I think the most loving thing a parent can do for
> their children is to work less hours and spend more time with them.
>
> - Xochi
>
>--
>| | "I am a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in |
>| Xochi Zen | a tortilla." - Xochi Zen |
I agree with your statements about parents simplifying their lives to
spend more time with the kids, or even with each other! MAybe that's why
"voluntary simplicity" is making such a hit wiht overworked and harried
folks!
Ann
vi...@global.california.com
On 21 Aug 1996, Ross Williams wrote:
> vi...@global.california.com wrote:
> : On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Jeanne wrote:
>
> : > Hey, I'm 28 & single.... I'm also a single mom... the father doesn't
> : > contribute anything nor does he even bother to communicate with me or
>
> : Jeanne, I have been there. When my ex and I broke up I still had 3 sons
> : to raise ALONE. Seems he thought that since he was being divorced, that
> : meant from the children also. We managed with some help from my parents,
> : and I got a promotion at work which really helped. The kids are now grown
> : up and doing quite well. :) I wish you luck Jeanne. It is a tough road.
>
> Well, to the both'a yuz, I'm sorry you're in the predicaments you
> are/were in.
>
> However, I'd caution you and the causual reader that the notion that
> "since he was being divorced, that meant from the children also" doesn't
> pop out of nowhere. SOMEthing has to put this idea in an absent parent's
> mind.
>
> Best of luck to the two of you.
>
> -rw
>
>
Seeing as how he never supported them - I just can't imagine what was
going thru his mind. Could have been the new woman in his life, but since
that only lasted 6 months, maybe not. Who knows? Frankly my dear........
;)
Hamid Wasti
In article <esmay-21089...@ip18.id.net> es...@syndicomm.com (Dean Esmay) writes:
>
>Note, I'm saying this as a married man who had numerous sexual partners
>before marriage. I've come to the conclusion in retrospect that most of
>what I did before marrying Rosemary was not particularly good for me.
Then why did you do it if it was not good for you? Most probably because
you did no know better at the time, but with increased experience and
wisdom you now know better. Now, honestly, tell me if someone gave you
the same arguments and advise that you have presented above, would you
have changed a thing? Most probably not.
Rather than preaching abstinence, which I agree is the very absolute in
safe sex (from disease, pregnancy and as you point out, long term
emotional standpoint) why not deal with the reality of what people are
going to do and preach safer sex. As soon as you start with: you should
not have sex because...... most young single people are going to tune you
out somewhere during the "because". Why not start with: if you are going
to have sex, have you considered......... Works a lot better, not just
for sex education, but in all sorts of sales and mediation/negotiation
situations as well. Rather than fighting an unwinnable battly for 100% of
the prize, it is better to fight a battle for only 75% where you actually
have a good shot of winning.
-----Hamid
Xochi Zen
I'd written:
>> I think far too many work themselves to death to pay for "show case"
>> homes that, ironically, they can barely enjoy because they're working
>> such long hours. The rich executives who have full-time nannies aren't
>> even raising their own children. Oh, they spend time with their kids
>> on weekends? Please. I think the most loving thing a parent can do for
>> their children is to work less hours and spend more time with them.
>>
>> - Xochi
Ann wrote:
>Xochi:
>
>I agree with your statements about parents simplifying their lives to
>spend more time with the kids, or even with each other! MAybe that's why
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen. No wonder american marriages are in trouble when both parents
barely get the chance to see each other. Of course it's not as simple
as all that, but it's a large contributing factor to marital failure
(I suspect).
There's another option: not having children at all. Albeit not a popular
one. If and when I get married, I want to be able to spend a lot of time
together with my wife. If a woman is having child after child, she's not
going to have a heck of a lot of time for me. Even less so if she has
a career (I guess I'm not particularly interested in women who want to
stay home in a bath-robe all day long watching TV).
Call me selfish, but I think there's more to marriage than
popping-out kids. Lifetime companionship for one. I really don't think
I'd need a *gang* to make marriage worthwhile for me. :) Adoption might
be the answer. Older kids require a whole heck of a lot less care than,
say, an infant would. It might be fun to have a family *if one had time
for it*.
I see far too many people trying to "have it all" --- to the detriment
of their children. Times they are a changin', and people seem awfully
confused. And selfish. Selfish with regard to having children in the
first place (*big* commitment) and continuing to work themselves into
the ground, leaving little time to spend with their children.
>"voluntary simplicity" is making such a hit wiht overworked and harried
>folks!
Has it finally been catching on? "Busy" is the buzz-word and collective
neuroticism of american life in the 90's as I see it. Are there any
non-rabid ( i.e."family values"/Religious Right crap), secular advocacy groups
for the family in america? Or for working people in general? I'd love to
see more job-sharing/30 hour work weeks/flexi-time in america. Why not
allow people to earn slightly less for more "leisure" time. Actually, I'm
hesitant to call it leisure time... how about "time for living one's
life"?
I think educating people is key. I've had this discussion before here
on ne.general, and I'm less inclined to want to have the gov't mandate
these things. But if people start demanding "more" (less) from employers,
maybe things will change.
Could you point me to any books about living simply? Moderately
simply... I'm not talking about living in a shack w/o electricity
or plumbing like the Unabomber!!!
- Xochi
--
| | "I am a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in |
| Xochi Zen | a tortilla." - Xochi Zen |
| x...@apocalypse.org | |
<----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
John Cooley
Neal C. Wickham <nwic...@indirect.com> wrote:
>I am never going to date a woman from Massachusetts as long as I live
>and will not set foot in the state with out a 12 pack of condoms!
>
>Why doesn't Massachustts just castrate all men a birth and nip the
>problem in the bud? To you guys in Massachusetts... there are other
>countries you know. What is so great about being an American?
Neal, I think it's very important here to note that it is not woman
who are the problem; but a rigged legal system that only sees fathers
as wallets. There are *plenty* of good & evil women out in our
beautiful world -- along with a similar mix of men. What's wrong
is that the laws let angry women ruin their children's & ex-hubby's
lives. Not too long ago, it was women who were at the mercy of
angry men. What I (and a lot of others) would like to see is some
sort of change where *everyone* can walk away from a divorce with
the hopes are restarting a new life. Right now this means fighting
the extreme anti-male bias in the Massachusetts courts.
Gary Brainin
>chances of marital success not so much because it's tied to religious
>belief, but because sexual encounters with multiple partners tend in most
>cases to cheapen future encounters with others, and to lead to
>expectations that the next person might not be able to meet.
[Explanation deleted]
This all strikes me as being based a bit too much on anecdotal
evidence. Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that sex is far from the
only factor in a relationship (someone once said that sex may only be
5% of a relationship, but if it's bad, it ruins the other 95%), the
conclusions you draw about the effect of premarital sex on sexual
satisfaction in marriage seem to be interesting, but not well founded.
I'm not married, but I certainly haven't found that my experiences
have caused me to view present and future encounters as "cheapened."
I can see how some people might have that kind of reaction, but to
suggest that it is a general human tendancy seems to me to go too far.
Note that I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that I'm not
convinced by your argument.
-Gary
Remember, it isn't premarital sex unless you
get married later.
--
|Gary Brainin | "...the right to be let alone--the most
|gar...@goonsquad.spies.com | comprehensive of rights and the right most
|Ramblings and PGP public key at: | valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. U.S.
|http://www.spies.com/garygm/ | (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <4vf16a$k...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
writes:
>vi...@global.california.com wrote:
>: On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Jeanne wrote:
>
>: > Hey, I'm 28 & single.... I'm also a single mom... the father
me or
>
>: Jeanne, I have been there. When my ex and I broke up I still had
3 sons: to raise ALONE. Seems he thought that since he was being
divorced, that>: meant from the children also. We managed with some
help from my parents,: and I got a promotion at work which really
helped. The kids are now grown>: up and doing quite well. :) I wish
you luck Jeanne. It is a tough road.
>
>Well, to the both'a yuz, I'm sorry you're in the predicaments you
>are/were in.
>
>However, I'd caution you and the causual reader that the notion that
>"since he was being divorced, that meant from the children also"
doesn't >pop out of nowhere. SOMEthing has to put this idea in an
absent parent's >mind.
>
we >are finding out that just as often, if not *more* often, this
>disappearing act is the result of latent or sometimes even manifest
>statements and actions by the ex-wife and the courts and society in
>general. Divorced men are having their "parental responsibility"
framed >for them in terms of financial contributions. Usually this
framing is >termed the higher priority, sometimes it is termed the only
priority. >And for every "irresponsible" father you can find who
thinks that all >anyone wants of him is a pound of his wallet-flesh,
there is a judge or >ex-wife who only wants that pound out of some man.
>
>
>-rw
Unlike rw, I have no need to speculate on the reasons (or excuses)
behind the father abandoment of his children. In the end, each of us
must determine what kind of people we see when we look in the mirror
each morning. My suggestion to any person (male or female) out there
who is not getting child support and desires that for your
children....go find help at your neares ACES group. They can alert you
to what you must do, up to and including placing leins on future
property. You might also want to take a trip to the DA's office ...In
CA they are obligated to help you collect.
Lefty
Hamid Wasti
In article <1996Aug21....@atl.com> da...@halcyon.com (David B. Greene) writes:
>>Marige and children will be
>>required by law. It will be illeagel to die without having raised at
>>least two kids. Breaking this law will be punishible by death.
>
>How many years do you get to try before conviction?
Note that it is illeagel to die. So you can try as much or as little as
you want but must not die before succeeding. The trail will be held
posthumously and the sentense will be passed in absentia. :-)
-----Hamid
Glenn S. Lyford
In article <hamidDw...@netcom.com>, ha...@netcom.com says...
>In article <321717...@tiac.net> "nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> writes:
>>....where the guy is figuring out how much
>>he'd have to pay a prostitute to do what his wife used to do or
>>something like that...)
>
>Actually that is an easy calculation from what I hear; it will cost him
>exactly $0.00 Having never been married, I can not speak from first
hand
>experience but talking to most of my married friends, it seems that sex
>has dwindled off to close to noting for most of them after a few years.
Now try to get the prostitute to do the cleaning, watch the kids, cook...
is it still $0.00? Didn't think so. --Glenn
Ann Sheehan
x...@apocalypse.org (Xochi Zen) wrote:
>I'd written:
>
>>> I think far too many work themselves to death to pay for "show case"
>>> homes that, ironically, they can barely enjoy because they're working
>>> such long hours. The rich executives who have full-time nannies aren't
>>> even raising their own children. Oh, they spend time with their kids
>>> on weekends? Please. I think the most loving thing a parent can do for
>>> their children is to work less hours and spend more time with them.
>>>
>>> - Xochi
>
>Ann wrote:
>
>>Xochi:
>>
>>I agree with your statements about parents simplifying their lives to
>>spend more time with the kids, or even with each other! MAybe that's why
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Amen. No wonder american marriages are in trouble when both parents
> barely get the chance to see each other. Of course it's not as simple
> as all that, but it's a large contributing factor to marital failure
> (I suspect).
>
> There's another option: not having children at all. Albeit not a popular
> one. If and when I get married, I want to be able to spend a lot of time
> together with my wife. If a woman is having child after child, she's not
> going to have a heck of a lot of time for me. Even less so if she has
> a career (I guess I'm not particularly interested in women who want to
> stay home in a bath-robe all day long watching TV).
>
Ooops: wrong thing to say: if a couple have children and the woman is an
at-home mom, trust me, the only reason she's in a robe all day is becasue
she won't have time to get dressed!
Having been an at-home mom, and a working mom, I can tell you, there's no
way to stay in a robe all day! If you have no kids and stay at home by
agreement, then I would hope the woman would be volunteering and busy!
> Call me selfish, but I think there's more to marriage than
> popping-out kids. Lifetime companionship for one. I really don't think
> I'd need a *gang* to make marriage worthwhile for me. :) Adoption might
> be the answer. Older kids require a whole heck of a lot less care than,
> say, an infant would. It might be fun to have a family *if one had time
> for it*.
Older kids are MUCH MORE work than babies: the latter you diaper, change,
feed, love , love, love and you watch them grow. As children get older
they need MORE attention and more ways to show you love them through
discipline, care, morality, as well as driving here and there etc.>
>
I see far too many people trying to "have it all" --- to the detriment
> of their children. Times they are a changin', and people seem awfully
> confused. And selfish. Selfish with regard to having children in the
> first place (*big* commitment) and continuing to work themselves into
> the ground, leaving little time to spend with their children.
I agree: we need to all slow down and appreciate each other by spending
time with each other. You sound like you are still young enough to give
it a go from the start; for many, like me, this realization didn't come
until later. BUt you CAN teach an old dog new tricks and I think I have
learned well.>
>
>"voluntary simplicity" is making such a hit wiht overworked and harried
>>folks!
>
> Has it finally been catching on? "Busy" is the buzz-word and collective
> neuroticism of american life in the 90's as I see it. Are there any
> non-rabid ( i.e."family values"/Religious Right crap), secular advocacy groups
> for the family in america? Or for working people in general? I'd love to
> see more job-sharing/30 hour work weeks/flexi-time in america. Why not
> allow people to earn slightly less for more "leisure" time. Actually,
We have job sharing in my workplace as well as split schedules, part-time
etc. We have far to go, but we are making strides!
I'm
> hesitant to call it leisure time... how about "time for living one's
> life"?
>
Yes, good call: my boss is always overworking and I tell her constantly:
let it go! I have a life beyond the walls of work and I almost NEVER
take work home or work weekends! I'm out in the woods (when I could
walk),gardening etc. It's so wonderful!
Where in MA do you live? We have so many wonderful parks and traila!
> I think educating people is key. I've had this discussion before here
> on ne.general, and I'm less inclined to want to have the gov't mandate
> these things. But if people start demanding "more" (less) from employers,
> maybe things will change.
>
> Could you point me to any books about living simply? Moderately
> simply... I'm not talking about living in a shack w/o electricity
> or plumbing like the Unabomber!!!
>
> - Xochi
>
There are quite a few books out there: there was an article in the Boston
Globe magazine just last Sun>--
I'm enjoying this chat: do e-mail me at ashe...@gis.net
Ann
While Eeyore frets and Piglet hesitates and Rabbit calculates and Owl
pontificates....Pooh just is!
Ross Thompson
In article <4vemhm$9...@arl-news-svc-2.compuserve.com>,
Hans-Georg Michna <> wrote:
>Besides, which woman would marry somebody who wants to eat his
>spaghetti with a screwdriver anyway? <grin>
Well, I've always preferred a nice Scotch.
- Ross
--
"Human misery is a sad spectacle. But it is sadder still when
disguised as moral righteousness." -- George Smith
Sheryl Kendrick
In article <Pine.BSI.3.93.96082...@global.california.com>, <vi...@global.california.com> writes:
>
>
>On 21 Aug 1996, Ross Williams wrote:
>
>> : On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Jeanne wrote:
>>
>> : > Hey, I'm 28 & single.... I'm also a single mom... the father doesn't
>>
>> : Jeanne, I have been there. When my ex and I broke up I still had 3 sons
>> : to raise ALONE. Seems he thought that since he was being divorced, that
>> : meant from the children also. We managed with some help from my parents,
>> : and I got a promotion at work which really helped. The kids are now grown
>> : up and doing quite well. :) I wish you luck Jeanne. It is a tough road.
>>
>> Well, to the both'a yuz, I'm sorry you're in the predicaments you
>> are/were in.
>>
>> However, I'd caution you and the causual reader that the notion that
>> "since he was being divorced, that meant from the children also" doesn't
>> pop out of nowhere. SOMEthing has to put this idea in an absent parent's
>> mind.
>>
>>
>> -rw
rw,
Maybe you didn't mean this to sound as blame laying as it did, but it's
you seem to sound like you were implying that the CP has something to
do with the NCP not being involved. Sometimes that SOMEthing is that
the NCP is irresponsible, sometimes that SOMEthing is that the NCP
is a selfish asshole, and yes, sometimes that SOMEthing is the CP.
Don't try to automatically blame the absence of the NCP on the CP.
We CP's do exist that would welcome and often tried to involve the
ex in the lives of the kids. Not all CP's tell the NCP to stay
away. And not all CP's do something to make the NCP want to stay away. >>
>>
Sheryl
Larry Brantley
Try "Simplify Your Life", by Elaine St. James.
It's subtitled: 100 ways to slow down and enjoy the things
that really matter.
larry
R. Nesset
nancy g. wrote:
>
> John Cooley wrote:
> > nancy g. <nan...@tiac.net> wrote:
> >> John Cooley writes:
>
> (snip, snip)
>
> > The way Mass. courts work, a mom can make $15,000 and it doesn't count as
> > far as C.S. is calculated.
>
> Well, the CP is allowed to earn up to $15K before the child support payments
> get reduced, that's true.
>
> > Hence, there's quite a few "full time mom's" with part time jobs.
>
> Agreed. They can no longer *afford* to be at home all day for their
> children, and so *must* find part time jobs so they can at least be home
> for the kids after school.
>
> > Then the C.S. payments are based almost exclusively
> > on what dad *can* make.
>
> Based on Dad's level of education, work history, age, current employment,
> medical history, etc.
>
> > Junior goes to college, dad has to foot the bill
> > PLUS continue C.S. payments to mom.
>
> As I said in another reply to someone in this thread, it's the "HAS TO
> foot the bill" part that's confusing me. Is it actually a LAW that the
> NCP *must* pay tuition for college? Are there *any* limits or restrictions?
> Is it based on the NCP's income? The CP's income? The total family income?
> The total cost of tuition? I have not seen this mentioned in any reading I've
> done, and we were told by our mediator that the wording in the divorce agreement
> about college tuition can be "very flexible" as long as we both agree to it.
>
> > >> and starts at roughly 30 percent of what the court says you're *capable*
> > >> of earning -- not what you *actually* earn.
>
> >> Not true. (snip of the child support guidelines)
> >> That "roughly 30 percent" you mention is true **ONLY**
> >> **IF** you are talking about NCP's with incomes of $500 per week
> >> or higher and supporting TWO children.
>
> > Try being a guy in Massachusetts and not make AT LEAST $26,000 a year.
> > It's *real* easy to very quickly fall into the 30 percent bracket.
>
> That's $13.00 an hour. Minimum wage is what, less than half that? If you're
> a college educated professional, then it's true you'd hit the 30 percent
> mark quickly. Not everybody's gone to college. Not everybody can make
> that kind of money, whether they're a guy or a ... no. I REFUSE to say
> a "gal." Dammit, the English language NEEDS another word for "women" that's
> the equivalent of what "guy" is for men!!!
>
> > Also, remember
> > the judge can impute any income he thinks you're possible of making!
>
> But that imputed income *is* based somewhat on reality ... the judge
> wouldn't expect someone without a high school education to earn $135K
> a year, for example, or someone who'd been out of work on disability for
> years to suddenly start working 45- or 50-hour weeks. It may not be
> ABSOLUTELY fair, but neither is it as out of line as you seem to think.
>
> > Again, remember mom's encouraged to NOT work (because Dad will be
> > ordered by the courts to pay for everything.)
>
> Jeez, I wish I knew which courts you're referring to ... I'd give up
> trying to work out an equitable settlement with my ex and just show up,
> because you make it sound like that's all I need to do and I'll be guaranteed
> to be living on Easy Street until I die of old age. Yeah ... I *wish* !!!
>
> > Hence, she has no insurance, can't pay for college, and needs the house
> > "for the kids" because she's a "full time mom."
>
> She still has insurance, and at no additional cost to Dad for the next
> (I think -- not sure of the exact time period) two or three years. The
> law in Massachusetts (and perhaps this is a Federal law) says that even
> if the parents are divorced the insurance carrier MUST continue to carry
> the dependents until such time as the spouse obtains coverage of her own.
> The "family" plan for most medical insurance does not distinguish between
> one-adult-and-kids and two-adults-and-kids, so Dad continues to pay for
> the kid's medical insurance JUST AS HE HAS ALWAYS DONE and Mom's insurance
> doesn't add a single penny to that cost.
>
> As far as needing the house for the kids ... hmmm, can we talk "best interest"
> here? Why is it assumed that when women make statements about something
> being best for the children, they really are secretly doing it selfishly
> for themselves and don't care about the kids at all? Maybe ... when we
> say we want something for the children ... we really want it for ...
> THE CHILDREN ???? In my own case, I'd *love* to escape from this
> house where we've gone through so much hell in the past couple of years.
> If it was just me, I'd be out of here ... so fast I'd leave a cloud of dust
> in my wake as I ran down the street, like in the Road Runner cartoons.
> But you know something? I *WILL* *NOT* do something like that to my
> kids ... and so I will continue to live in this place that I can't even stand
> to look at any more, until I have found a smaller place that I can afford and
> that isn't falling down around our ears and that actually has heat and hot
> water, and not only that, but I won't make these kids move until I can manage
> to talk about and prepare for moving in such a way that my six-year-old
> actually might *NOT* have her *ENTIRE* life totally disrupted, just a big
> huge part of it.
>
> > Note: mothers aren't required to work in Massachusetts as
> > part of any divorce proceeding
>
> Mothers of **CHILDREN UNDER AGE SIX** are not required to work. I know this
> one for an absolute fact, as my youngest is six years PLUS a few months old,
> and my lawyer, his lawyer, and the mediator all keep calling this
> fact to our attention.
>
> > dads are required to pay Child Support
> > based on the income the court *believes* he can make -- not what he
> > *actually* earns.
>
> Based on real-life expectations. And Moms are required to do the same.
> The law says NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS, not "Dads."
>
> >> Well, assuming they've got a pretty good income, they'd pay 30 percent
> >> for child support and ... what, 27 percent, for taxes? That's 57 percent
> >> You say they live on 10 percent, so that must mean they are spending
> >> 33 percent of their gross income on their child's college and medical
> >> expenses?
>
> > 27 PERCENT FOR TAXES???
>
> Yep. Just about.
>
> > Who is *your* accountant??
>
> I'm my own accountant, thanks. I don't have the money to hire one.
>
> > You obviously only
> > pay the lowest Federal tax, no State tax, no FICA, no sales taxes, no
> > excise taxes, no sales taxes...
>
> I "obviously?" Well, let's see. There's no sales tax on food or clothes in
> Massachusetts, so the only sales tax we pay is on non-food items at the
> store. Big-ticket items, if we buy any, we get in New Hampshire (and I
> live close to the state line, where the most convenient shopping for me
> *is* over the border, so I don't specifically go there just to avoid taxes.)
> Excise tax is MINIMAL on an old car, so I don't take that into account
> (we've got two cars, an 87 and an 89).
>
> If you think 27 percent is too low, let's figure it out. Say that
> Hypothetical Dad here makes, what, $55K a year? Good income, even in
> Massachusetts, right? He's making the mortgage payments, so let's say
> the house is mortgaged for ... oh, $90K, and the mortgage is from a
> few years ago so it's at 7.5 percent ... that's $650 a month P-and-I ...
> say he gets an exemption for himself on the federal tax plus at least one
> more for the kid ... state tax in Massachusetts is 5.95 percent ... real
> estate tax varies town to town, let's call it 1.6 percent and let's say that
> the house is worth $150K ...
>
> OK, let's run these numbers. All very rough estimates.
>
> Gross income: $55,000
> Mortgage interest paid: $ 6,000
> Exemptions (federal): $ 5,000
> Exemptions (state): $ 3,200
> Real estate tax: $ 2,400
>
> Massachusetts also has the $2,000 deduction for Social Security and the
> additional $500 for a child under 12, so that's another $2,500 deduction
> off the state income tax.
>
> So the taxable income for the state is $55K, less $3.2K, less $2.5K, for
> a total state taxable income of $49.3K, and 6 percent tax on that is a
> total state tax of $2,940.
>
> Taxable income for federal is $55K, less $6K, less $5K, less $2.4K, less the
> $2.9K paid to the state, for a total federal taxable income of $38.7K.
> Federal tax on that amount is $7,800.
>
> Gross income $55,000
> less taxes paid:
> Federal $7800
> State $2940
> Property $2400
> Total taxes paid $13,140
> -------------------------------------------------
> That's 23.89 percent of the gross income for taxes.
>
> I admit that I wasn't thinking about the FICA/Social Security/Medicaid
> whatever when I gave the 27 percent figure; if you add the ... what is it,
> 7 percent more for those things? then it *does* come to a little more than
> 27 percent. Still, 30 percent for CS and 30 percent for taxes leaves NCP
> with 40 percent of his gross pay ... I still claim if he's only left with
> 10 percent to live on, he's paying too damn much for the kid's tuition.
>
> If this was based on one real person, I'd like to know some actual numbers
> for his family, including where the kid goes to college and the amount
> NCP pays compared to the total cost, any scholarships, any contribution the
> kid makes him/herself, what the CP is paying, etc.
>
> > I guess you don't have to pay for
> > car insurance, either!
>
> I don't understand. Why do you say that? Of course I do. We were talking
> here about what's left to live on after taxes, child support, and tuition.
> Car insurance is a legitimate expense, and of course I pay it. I also pay
> my utility bills, and I buy groceries, and I put gas in the car, and the
> kids get new winter jackets and sneakers, and I even take the cat to the
> vet once a year for her shots ... but none of these things are relevant to
> what we've been discussing.
>
> > College expenses are exhorbitant and just
> > try buying health insurance on your own these days... (A lot isn't
> > covered on pre-existing conditions if you switch jobs, too!)
>
> As I said, NCP's insurance company is obligated to keep the former spouse
> and the kids on their plan until they are covered elsewhere.
>
> > I'm basing my arguments that dad makes at least $35,000 a year -- you
> > seem to be basing yours on people who make $9,000 a year. Hmmm... How
> > does one live in Mass. on $9,000 a year? Don't even office temps
> > clear ~$30,000 to ~$35,000 a year? Hmmmm....
>
> Hmmmm indeed. My figures, as I've demonstrated, were very close to being
> accurate (except for forgetting to account for the FICA), and for an income
> quite a bit better than your $35,000 figure, too. (That will teach me to
> read an entire post THOROUGHLY before I start replying to it ... sheesh, if
> I'd used $35K as an income instead of the $55K I did use, the numbers would've
> come out way better to prove my point!!
>
> >> Nancy G.
> >> this stuff is bad enough as it is ... let's not make it sound
> >> any worse by distorting the facts!!!
> > After punching holes in your distorting the facts ...
>
> Sorry, John, but as you can see, I'm pretty handy with the Spackle.
> Now that I've patched up all those holes you tried to punch, please
> indicate which facts I distorted?
>
> > I find your closing rather amusing. Nancy, would you care to tell us
> > how "imputing" works?
>
> Why yes, thank you John, I'd love to. See, I have three children. The two
> younger ones will be living with me, but my oldest will be living with my
> ex-husband. That means that **I** get to contribute some of **my** income
> toward **his** support. "Imputing" is how the judges have come up with a
> figure for what **my** alleged income will be.
>
> First, a bit of background: I last held a "real" job in the summer of
> 1983, and that was only a temp job. I'm over 40 years old and have an
> associate's degree, which was earned in secretarial school back at a time
> when we used typewriters ... no, not even electronic word processors, but
> just plain typewriters ... to do our work. I have one child who catches
> the school bus at 8:35 (she's too young to leave alone to wait until the bus
> comes) and another who arrives home at 2:15 (and she's too *OLD* to be left
> unsupervised for too long in the afternoon, as well as being too old for the
> after-school day care program).
>
> So ... to answer your question ... "imputing" works by having the lawyers
> explain to me that I must consider myself **capable of** earning between
> $18,000 and $22,000 a year, and that I must consider it **possible** for
> me to work 40 hours a week, and then I need to lower the amount of child support
> I will actually get for my two girls by the amount it would be lowered if it
> actually **were** possible for me to be out bringing home that amount of money
> ... whether I'm really able to do it, or not.
>
> That's what "imputing" means to me and my family.
>
> > John Cooley
> > The Fathers Group
>
> The Mom
If you don't mind my asking, how much do you pay in cs for the child
your ex has? How much does he pay in cs to you for your two? If it is
too personal, you don't have to answer.
You say also that 90 per cent being taken out means too much in tuition
is being taken out. Wstwoodlock here is an employer, and I don't know
all of the details, but after he deducts everything from an employee's
paycheck, the paycheck is in the negative. The employee actually OWES
him money...after every paycheck, if memory serves. And I don't think
the employee is even paying tuition. This is just f.y.i.
Dean Esmay
> Then why did you do it if it was not good for you? Most probably because
> you did no know better at the time, but with increased experience and
> wisdom you now know better. Now, honestly, tell me if someone gave you
> the same arguments and advise that you have presented above, would you
> have changed a thing? Most probably not.
Had I not been immersed in a social mindset which does much to encourage
and not much to discourage profligate sexual behavior, I might have.
> Rather than preaching abstinence, which I agree is the very absolute in
> safe sex (from disease, pregnancy and as you point out, long term
> emotional standpoint) why not deal with the reality of what people are
> going to do and preach safer sex.
What you suggest here is a false paradigm. I do not have an either/or
choice here, and I will not make one.
I think that abstinence for young people is most sensible NOT from a
standpoint of disease and pregnancy, but from a psychological standpoint.
I believe most people are healthier and happier not being this way, and
there's much to support my belief.
I think that this is a message more people, especially young people,
should hear. It's not just about "safe sex," it's about far more than
that.
Teaching kids why it's a good idea to wait is a great idea. Teaching them
with an attitude that starts with the assumption that they won't sends a
pretty good sales message. It's tacit permission.
I grew up in the '80s. I know that those attitudes caused. I knew a
number of pregnant girls in High School, and my own sister was pregnant at
16. This is madness.
>As soon as you start with: you should
> not have sex because...... most young single people are going to tune you
> out somewhere during the "because".
I think this is a really bad assumption--an assumption that's led to a
whole lot of teen pregnancies, a whole lot of sexual diseases, a whole lot
of deaths, and a whole lot of failed marriages, and a whole lot of misery
and unhappiness in the world.
In point of fact teaching kids that they shouldn't have sex and telling
them why WILL reach a lot of them--most of them I think.
The question then is how to deal most effectively and compassionately with
those who don't. There's much that could be said there. But one start
would be NOT to have the attitude that if you've done it once you should
keep doing it--or worse, the ASSUMPTION that you'll keep doing it.
chess
> Maybe you didn't mean this to sound as blame laying as it did, but it's
> you seem to sound like you were implying that the CP has something to
> do with the NCP not being involved. Sometimes that SOMEthing is that
> the NCP is irresponsible, sometimes that SOMEthing is that the NCP
> is a selfish asshole, and yes, sometimes that SOMEthing is the CP.
> Don't try to automatically blame the absence of the NCP on the CP.
> We CP's do exist that would welcome and often tried to involve the
> ex in the lives of the kids. Not all CP's tell the NCP to stay
> away. And not all CP's do something to make the NCP want to stay away. >>
> >>
> Sheryl
As I have said before, there are as many reasons for NCP's to disappear
as there are so-called "Deadbeats". It is not necessarily the CP's
fault, but then again, the NCP doesn't necessarily have to be an
"asshole" or just a plain jerk . . . he could be a very loving, caring
person. You are generalizing whenever you say that he is an asshole or
whatever . . .
Thank-you-very-much-and-have-a-nice-day . . . :-)
Marc
>
>