Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
Barry Pearson
news:4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com...
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<uCV29.2279$mB4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> > This was NOT free from the unpredictability of human judgement!.
>
> It was free of the normal WESTERN right of due process of law.
> That's the thing you and the commies are not willing to allow.
> That's what you claim failed and should not be allowed to return.
When you talked of the end of Western civilisation, I saw this as hyperbole.
After all, Western civilisation has won. Communism is discredited & finished.
Islam is intellectually a spent force. Eastern nations are adopting Western
economic approaches in order to survive. I wondered whether you were having an
elaborate joke at my expense, but this idea of "the end of Western civilisation"
appears in your other writing as well. I have asked whether there is some date
in 17xx or 18xx or 19xx that epitomises "Western civilisation", but I haven't
seen a response.
Normally I should simply be able to read carefully what someone actually says.
But your words don't mean what they say. When you say "child support reforms",
you are not talking about child support. When you criticise "democracy", you are
not talking about what I & many others & my dictionary mean by democracy. I
don't think what you mean by "Western civilisation" is what I mean by that term.
"Individual rights & personal freedoms"? "Democracy"? "The Enlightenment"?
"Science"? I don't think those are what you are talking about.
Then I read your statement: "That's part of the miracle of the Common Law
system -- trial after trial (think like a scientist when I use the word
"trial") -- the trial courts try to get it right". I wonder if this provides the
clue? When you talk about "Western civilisation", are you really talking about
"the way law & the courts work in the USA"? I'll say why I think that is what
you are talking about, but only you can know.
- I saw PICSLT as a way of getting a better formula for calculating child
support liabilities. But - "Project for the Improvement of Child Support
LITIGATION Technology"? I now believe you intend it purely as a tool for use in
courts.
- In your article "About California NOW's Family Court Report" which ends "It is
time for us to return to western civilization", you appear to be complaining
about the usurping of powers of family courts.
- You say "The law requires that awards determined by the application of child
support guidelines be rebuttable", which appears to be primarily relevant to use
in courts.
I won't go on quoting from your work, because this really needs you to confirm
or deny it. But my reading of your articles is that what you really mean by
"Western civilisation" is the ability to argue matters in court in the
traditional US manner. And, to you, "the end of Western civilisation" means the
restriction by central formula of what courts are allowed to decide. That is
why, to you, "child support reform" is helping the end of Western civilisation.
If this IS what you really mean by "Western civilisation", then we must part
company. You need to remember that (depending on who you read) there are 2 or 3
times as many lawyers per head in the USA than in the UK, which in turn has more
lawyers per head than the vast majority of other nations. Frequent recourse to
law and the use of courts is a feature of the litigious nature of the USA. It is
not as common across "the West", and is not an important part of "Western
civilisation". While the long-stop protection of individual rights & personal
freedoms tends to need the law to "take on" the state, and is likely to need
support from conventions & treaties which may override national sovereignty,
much of life can be handled in other ways.
To me, courts are no more needed for establishing rational child support
liabilities than they are for establishing tax liabilities or benefits/welfare
rates. Neither, in the UK, have they credibility for doing so. And neither, for
many people (on all sides) affected by the child support system, would the
intrusion & costs of courts be welcome.
"Western civilisation 2002" has significant faults. But I believe the main
remedy for these would be a willingness of Western states to allow their
citizens to exploit the various conventions on rights & freedoms that already
exist, and that some of these Western states already promote elsewhere. Human
rights, children's rights, sexual equality, racial equality - these conventions
are somewhat bland, but experience suggests that they can cap the excesses of
"the state". That is where courts SHOULD have their power.
Child Support Agenda for the 21st Century
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/what_next.htm
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/faq/
RogerFGay
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<uCV29.2279$mB4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > >
> > > This was NOT free from the unpredictability of human judgement!.
> >
> > It was free of the normal WESTERN right of due process of law.
> > That's the thing you and the commies are not willing to allow.
> > That's what you claim failed and should not be allowed to return.
>
> When you talked of the end of Western civilisation, I saw this as hyperbole.
>
Barry,
You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working toward
international socialist rule. Obviously you have no interest in logic
and reason, and you're pretending this is about the US verses Europe.
Anything having to do with the west is too complicated and subject to
your constant claim - against all real evidence - that it has failed.
Before you leave the debate -- if that's what you choose to do -- I
want to make sure I've mentioned that the fundamental politics of your
argument are factually incorrect. Western liberalism and Common Law
were born in England.
You reject the western rule of law. Look at what that's done for
countries outside of the west. Once you're outside the US and Western
Europe (go a little farther east) you'll find burning homes and bombed
out buildings as the direct result of raw group politics. You'll find
(socialist) systems that exploit group politics, intensify conflict,
and then use one group to hold another in check. You'll find rule by
religous sects and pseudo-religous war-lords related to oppression and
eternal war. You'll find poverty and lack of progress of all kinds.
As for Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation
TECHNOLOGY, it, as very clearly stated on the introductory page of the
web site, covers "the science, engineering, and application of child
support guidelines." LITIGATION is a word in the ENGLISH language and
does have to do with what happens in court. It is very much related to
the "application of child support guidelines." It's senseless to talk
about design of child support guidelines without taking the context of
their application into consideration. As an engineer you should know
that. You apparently do, and have it in mind that the western rule of
law should be eliminated; replaced by the socialist approach.
You've been unwilling to explain why you want that. Instead, you've
tried to play Europe verses the US, claimed the basic questions are
too complex to be answered, said that the system failed although
you're unwilling to say openly that you're claiming that the western
system failed, play Europe verses the US again, and now you seem to be
implying there's something funny about my research -- looks like
you're on the verge of deteriorating into a simple mud-slinger.
The mode of application of child support guidelines defines how they
will be designed. The western rule of law (including England before
its final fall) is absolutely superior to the socialist system of
group rights and entitlements granted according to who won the last
election.
Barry Pearson
news:4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com...
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
[snip]
> > When you talked of the end of Western civilisation, I saw
> > this as hyperbole.
>
> Barry,
>
> You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working
> toward international socialist rule.
Not true. I believe in the Western rule of law and I think you are deluded in
your mis-interpretation of it. I am certainly not working towards international
socialist rule! Frankly, that is a bit OTT even by your standards!
I am working towards individual rights & personal freedoms in defiance of state
sovereignty. I don't believe you are doing this. I am willing to see national
sovereignty have to take account of conventions concerning individual rights &
personal freedoms, whereas you appear to resist this.
"Socialist rule" is a non-starter, and I don't feel paranoid about it. I am
trying to solve serious problems, and I won't get blocked by irrelevant fears of
powerless systems, and I won't get diverted in order to support particular
ideologies at the cost of solving real problems.
The CSA in the UK is the product of right-wing thinking by a right-wing
government. It has nothing to do with socialism. Using a formula has nothing to
do with socialism. A formula for how much tax you should pay has nothing to do
with socialism. A formula for how much welfare should be paid has nothing to do
with socialism. They are formulae!
> Obviously you have no interest in logic and reason,
> and you're pretending this is about the US verses Europe.
I am fanatical about logic. I feel that your ideology has caused you to divert
from adequate standards of logic.
You appear to have completely missed the point that (depending on who you read)
there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA than in the UK, which
in turn has more lawyers per head than the vast majority of other nations.
Frequent recourse to law and the use of courts is a feature of the litigious
nature of the USA. It is not as common across "the West", and is not an
important part of "Western civilisation". While the long-stop protection of
individual rights & personal freedoms tends to need the law to "take on" the
state, and is likely to need support from conventions & treaties which may
override national sovereignty, much of life can be handled in other ways.
Your particular interest in the way the US works is different from the way the
rest of the English-speaking works, and even more different from the way the
rest of "the West" works, but that is just a small part. It has little more
relevance than whether we drive on the left or the right, or use Imperial rather
than metric measures, etc.
> Anything having to do with the west is too complicated and subject
> to your constant claim - against all real evidence - that it has failed.
The West hasn't failed. It has suceeded. It simply hasn't suceeded in the way
that YOU wanted it to!
I believe you are so hooked on a particular feature of US society - its
litigious nature - that you totally confuse this even with general US
civilisation (which has a lot more to offer), and you are totally out of touch
with "Western civilisation" in its wider sense, across the West, and across
countries which are now trying to keep abreast of the West.
Having a formula for child support liability is not a sign of the failure of the
West! Using a formula has nothing to do with socialism. It is a formula! It can
make things more predictable, more practical, and enable people to get on with
their lives.
> Before you leave the debate -- if that's what you choose to do -- I
> want to make sure I've mentioned that the fundamental politics of
> your argument are factually incorrect.
No, they are correct. You simply have a different opinion - that is your right,
but it is just an opinion.
> Western liberalism and Common Law were born in England.
Yes they were. Yet there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA
than in the UK. Why? I suggest this is because the US approach is not
representative of English Common Law. It is a separate form of law, specific to
the US, which has undoubtedly evolved from English Common Law. But still
different. Frankly, I believe that if the founders of the Constitution were
entirely satisfied with English Common Law, they wouldn't have declared
independence. But they wanted something significantly different. Fine - but just
accept that in 1776 the US started on a different path from the rest of the
West!
Don't let your desire for that US form of law delude you into thinking that this
is what English common law was all about. And certainly don't delude yourself
about the power of English common law - it is simply an approach to law, not the
be all & end all of law for ever more!
> You reject the western rule of law.
No I don't. I embrace the Western rule of law across much of the West, including
the UK. I do believe that the extremes to which the US has sometimes pushed it
are not representative of the West, and are different from its origins in
England. That doesn't make it wrong - or right - just different.
> Look at what that's done for countries outside of the west.
> Once you're outside the US and Western Europe (go a
> little farther east) you'll find burning homes and bombed
> out buildings as the direct result of raw group politics.
And none of those happened because someone adopted a formula for child support!
NONE! Ye Gods! Get a sense of perspective here! We are talking about using a
formula for sorting out the cash flow for raising children in separated
families. Stick to that simple, well-scoped, topic. It won't burn homes or bomb
people!
And I'll bite my tongue about some events in the US! Many countries suffer
hardships. If the US were to be judged purely by its hardships, it would stand
condemned. But I judge it (and other countries) also by their ability to evolve.
The US has a massive ability to evolve - but sometimes away from what YOU hold
dear!
> You'll find (socialist) systems that exploit group politics,
> intensify conflict, and then use one group to hold another
> in check. You'll find rule by religous sects and pseudo-religous
> war-lords related to oppression and eternal war.
> You'll find poverty and lack of progress of all kinds.
I read Skeptical Inquirer. As far as I can tell, you have just described the US!
I have visited the USA many times, on business & pleasure. I like the place, I
made several friends, and there are a numberof photographs from the USA on my
photographic web site. There will be many more in future. But I felt safer
walking around Beijing at night (or around markets in Nairobi, or around
Kashmir) than Washington DC at night - sorry, but that is a simple fact. The USA
has troubles which are clearly visible for a frequent visitor like myself.
Others will have to decide why this is so. But I believe that the ligitious
nature of the US sometimes disenfranchises poorer people. (This happens in the
UK too - we need to enfranchise poorer people, so that they actually feel as
though they belong to Western civilisation). This feature that you feel is so
important needs money to exploit it. In the UK, many people on all sides of the
child support system do NOT want to get involved with courts & lawyers, etc.
They feel it will shut them out and cost them money that they can ill afford.
They want a good predictable formula instead.
> As for Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation
> TECHNOLOGY, it, as very clearly stated on the introductory
> page of the web site, covers "the science, engineering, and
> application of child support guidelines." LITIGATION is a
> word in the ENGLISH language and does have to do with
> what happens in court. It is very much related to
> the "application of child support guidelines."
I now realise that what you are developing isn't a generalised formula for how t
o sort out the cash flow to raise children in separated families. Instead, you
have restricted your endevours to a means of sorting things out in court. That
is your choice, but I believe more is needed for those parts of Western
civilisation that don't think as you do.
I am trying to work out something more general and more powerful, which doesn't
rely on courts. That restricts the applicability of your work. You may find a
niche in the US, but I think you will have diminishing returns elsewhere. We'll
see - we can talk again in (say) 10 years.
> It's senseless to talk about design of child support guidelines
> without taking the context of their application into consideration.
> As an engineer you should know that. You apparently do, and
> have it in mind that the western rule of
> law should be eliminated; replaced by the socialist approach.
No, I simply believe that a formula can work. That is applicable to the West,
without compromising the Western rule of law. (It may not be liked by YOU, but
that is a different matter!)
Using a formula has nothing to do with socialism. It is a formula!
> You've been unwilling to explain why you want that.
I have explained my views and the background of them in vast detail on my web
site, and in any number of articles. But you may have chosen not to read (or
perhaps simply not accept) views that differ from your own. A formula can work.
It is not the end of Western civilisation. It is just a formula!
> Instead, you've tried to play Europe verses the US,
As I said, there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA than in
the UK. There are more per head in the UK than in the rest of Europe. They have
a different approach to sorting things out. Live with that fact.
> claimed the basic questions are too complex to be answered,
No, the basic questions are quite simple to be answered. My Agenda attempts to
answer them. The result is much simpler than your approach. It can be solved by
formula, it doesn't need litigation.
> said that the system failed
The UK CSA system failed - it tried to take too much into account, needing too
much evidence. It was not predictable, cost too much to administer, and was not
practical. It was too intrusive into people's lives. Few if any (mothers or
fathers) liked a system that used so much information. The system that preceded
the CSA system, based on various types of court, had also failed. There is no
dispute. I am now trying to find something that will work, and that needs to be
simpler.
> although you're unwilling to say openly that you're claiming
> that the western system failed,
Western civilisation has won. That is what we see now. I am building on what I
believe it will evolve into.
But most of Western civilisation doesn't depend on litigation to the extent of
the US. As I said, there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA
than in the UK. The US is unusual, not representative.
> play Europe verses the US again,
As I said, there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA than in
the UK. Live with that fact.
> and now you seem to be implying there's something
> funny about my research -- looks like you're on the
> verge of deteriorating into a simple mud-slinger.
Your research is based on your opinion of the way US civilisation should be.
Fine! That doesn't mean that everyone believes US civilisation should be like
that.
More important, for me, is the fact that much of the rest of the West doesn't
think or behave like you. It would therefore probably be hard to translate your
work to the rest of the Western world, until you relax your view that it is
about litigation.
> The mode of application of child support guidelines defines
> how they will be designed. The western rule of law (including
> England before its final fall) is absolutely superior to the socialist
> system of group rights and entitlements granted according to
> who won the last election.
So you say. It is your opinion, unsubstantiated by evidence. But more important,
it is just your view that what you advocate is the epitome of the Western rule
of law! You simply have a view of it, and others have a different view of it.
I believe you are wrong, and that you are doing a disservice to your engineering
principles. Instead of trying to solve a problem, you are trying to support a
mechanism. You have unduly handicapped yourself. Step back and look at the
problem instead, free from ideology about how to solve it.
RogerFGay
>
> Barry,
> You have had a dozen people say basically the same things to you in a dozen
> different ways.
> Yet you simply cannot face the possibility that you may be wrong on some
> things.
>
> HTH
>
> ~wd
Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push internationalism
(while its still heavily influenced by the Marxist left). Here we are
discussing the international effects of the success of the
international left's agenda in child support reform and he's playing
the nationalism card. I think the self-contradiction is more than
enough to invite suspecion.
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push internationalism
> (while its still heavily influenced by the Marxist left).
No. I haven't told anyone that. Stop telling lies than can be disproved by
anyone who cares to search the Google Groups archive! What do you hope to gain
from those lies?
My agenda is as follows. I defy anyone to provide useful evidence of your
desperate assertions.
Roger - please stop your relentless personal attacks on me, that you have been
pursuing for many days now. Please stop telling lies about my agenda that don't
resemble my agenda. Please accept that it is possible to accept the principles
and values of western civilisation without having to agree with you! You,
believe it or not, are NOT the arbiter of "western civilisation"! You simply
have an opinion, as you, and very many millions of other people, are entitled to
have.
Until I see any merit in what you say, I will continue to pursue my agenda with
confidence.
wd
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02081...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push internationalism
> > (while its still heavily influenced by the Marxist left).
> [snip]
>
> No. I haven't told anyone that. Stop telling lies than can be disproved by
> anyone who cares to search the Google Groups archive! What do you hope to
gain
> from those lies?
>
> My agenda is as follows. I defy anyone to provide useful evidence of your
> desperate assertions.
>
> Roger - please stop your relentless personal attacks on me, that you have
been
> pursuing for many days now.
I for one have not seen any *personal* attacks, nor have i seen desperate
assertions.
Unless you consider challenging your agenda is an attack?
>Please stop telling lies about my agenda that don't
> resemble my agenda. Please accept that it is possible to accept the
principles
> and values of western civilisation without having to agree with you! You,
> believe it or not, are NOT the arbiter of "western civilisation"!
And neither are you.
You simply cannot understand this. YOU and YOUR agenda are simply
not as accurate as you desire it to be.
You are being very defensive when challenged. I wonder why.
> You simply
> have an opinion, as you, and very many millions of other people, are
entitled to
> have.
I find it odd you almost admit here that millions of others feel the same
way.
>
> Until I see any merit in what you say, I will continue to pursue my agenda
with
> confidence.
False confidence.
HAND
~wd
RogerFGay
> There is a long discussion going on between Roger Gay and Barry Pearson.
> You can read it all if you have time on your hands, but here are a few
> snippets.
> >
> > You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working toward
> > international socialist rule. Obviously you have no interest in logic
> > and reason,
>
> these ideas?
>
Tiberius, I'm wondering why you started a new thread to make your
comment. There are many posts on this topic already in the existing
threads.
Are you asking me if I found in Barry's writings, places where he says
"I, Barry Pearson, am working against the western rule of law toward
international socialist rule"? I haven't found that statement in
Barry's writings and have never claimed to have. Barry denies it.
That's what led to debate, i.e. many posts. I have been saying things
to Barry that in one way or another many other people have said to him
and people have dropped by making short comments in support of my
position.
As you've pointed out, there's a long discussion in the established
thread. I think this one should die a quick death, because it's quite
an inefficient use of my time to respond to the same issue in several
threads. Anybody who's interested can read the posts in "Book Review:
Child Support's Wacky Math."
RogerFGay
>
> I have mentioned this before in a post. Ancedotal evidence but apt as
> a general example just the same. Both my brother's divorce trial in
> 1979 and mine in early 1981 took less than 4 hours. His was less
> than two hours and mine was a little more than 4 hours because there
> were some issues my ex and I could not agree on until the last minute
> when the judge began talking continuance. That was incentive for both
> of us to come to agreement.
>
> My current husband went through divorce via the Reform system. He
> served his ex with divorce papers in June of 1987 and his divorce was
> not final until December of 1989 and then it was a bifurcated divorce
> because they could not agree on property. That was not settled until
> September of 1992. By then he had been remarried to me for 2 full
> years while still fighting in divorce court with the ex.
>
>
Yes. Now you have a good insight as to why people in socialist
countries think the US system is bad and inefficient and it's all like
the OJ trial. It's because it is that way in socialist countries. In
Sweden, it can take four to five years to complete a trial and get a
decision in a child support case. Once that's done, people spend years
fighting an array of government agencies trying to get it all
staightened out. They can't because each agency (many with the power
and authority to take money from their paychecks, or automatically get
collected anything they ask for by the state collection agency) all
have their own rules. None of them care what the overall effect is on
the individual. They call that "efficiency."
>
> Here's another example. My husband is fighting the false arrears set
> by the CSA. It is in appeals court right now. In the course of this
> battle, it took the CSA 3 years to come up with an "audit" of my
> husband's CS record. This amounted to a 1 sheet (after 12 years of
> paying CS) handwritten (by a clerk...not a bookkeeper or accountant)
> "audit" based on my husband's IRS tax statements (which included my
> income which was not subtracted out), and absolutely no mention of 5
> years worth of State & Federal tax intercepts amounting to thousands
> of $$$, as well as shoddy accounting practices and simple math
> errors.
>
Wait till you start seeing lists of numbers printed out on computer
paper as the response, all coded and impossible to interpret. From the
basic spirit of the stuff through implementation, it's not for humans.
> But that is not what my husband's attoneys are using to attack the CSA
> "audit." They are using the principles of estoppel and latches.
> Although the "audit" is riddled with obvious errors we would need to
> hire at least one and maybe more expert witness like CPA's or even a
> local university professor to attack the state and stand any chance of
> overturning the "audit" because it was wrong. And even with such
> expert testimony (which would cost us thousands of $$$ MORE) we might
> not effectively challenge the "audit."
>
And it all becomes increasingly complicated. I've written a large
number of articles and studies at this point -- but it was only in my
second article -- back in my exploratory days -- that I saw this
handwriting on the wall. They started the whole thing saying they were
simplifying and making things more "uniform" and efficient. But it is
a hard fast rule of nature that false simplification and efficiency
costs exponentially more in complexity and inefficiency than doing it
right.
> This is in large part because of the way the statutes are written, the
> over amount of discretion family court judges are allowed to use, etc.
> In effect family court judges do not have to rule on facts, evidence,
> the law, or much of anything else and they still need not fear they
> will be found abusing their discretion.
>
You are wrong about this part. Judicial discretion is nearly dead.
Judges are not allowed to rule on facts and evidence. Facts and
evidence are assumed in the writing of the statutes and guidelines,
and by law judges are required to presume that they (the result) is
correct. It is this en masse decision making that has replaced
case-by-case decision making (in view of the evidence and on the basis
of law) that is at the heart of the problem.
Tiberius
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Tiberius, I'm wondering why you started a new thread to make your
> comment. There are many posts on this topic already in the existing
> threads.
>
It was a precis; I don't think it should become a new discussion.
If there are people who looked at the size of the discussion and turned
away, then a precis might give them a flavour of the discussion and maybe
prompt them to read it. The idea was to get it to a wider audience. If
that's a bad motive or I did it clumsily or incorrectly, then I apologise.
Tiberius
Barry Pearson
> "Tiberius" <sp...@mania-n.info> wrote in message
news:<aj06k9$1619ci$1...@ID-130298.news.dfncis.de>...
> > There is a long discussion going on between Roger Gay and
> > Barry Pearson. You can read it all if you have time on your
> > hands, but here are a few snippets.
I think it was useful to try to see what the basis of the disagreement is. I'll
use this article to add more to the precis. (Here, I'll write as though I am
speaking to Tiberius rather than to Roger Gay).
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Barry,
> > >
> > > You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working
> > > toward international socialist rule. Obviously you have no
> > > interest in logic and reason,
> >
> > Roger, where in Barry's writings on his website or in the NG
> > do you get these ideas?
Roger is simply wrong. I am interested in logic and reason (which is exactly
what would be expected from someone whose degree is in mathematical physics and
who have since then been an engineer, mainly in computing). I support the
western rule of law (and indeed rely on it, by publishing material critical of
the government under my own name hosted in my own country). I am not working
toward international socialist rule (and Roger doesn't appear to be working to
any consensus definition of what "socialist rule" is).
The UK's CSA was an anti-socialist measure brought in by one of the most
anti-socialist governments we have had. It had an aim of reducing dependency on
"the state" and reducing the redistribution of taxes in the form of
welfare/benefits, by making separated parents between them take more
responsibility for financing the raising of their children. It doesn't meet the
definitions I can find about socialism, whether these are classic "clause 4"
socialism (stating that the means of production, distribution and exchange
should be publically owned), or variants such as redistribution across unrelated
people via the tax system. (Neither does it resemble communism, which is
probably best considered as the opposite of capitalism & free enterprise).
The fact that (according to Roger Gay) certain child support techniques
originated in Soviet Russia doesn't not mean that the are inherently communist.
This has to be determined by examination. "To simply dismiss it, or any idea,
based solely on its cultural antecedents, is incredibly erroneous". I got that
quote (actually, about atheism) from:
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/francesparker/blackatheism.h
tml
Will listening to the music of Dimitri Shostakovitch turn people into
card-carrying communists? Do we need to ban it?
> Are you asking me if I found in Barry's writings, places where he says
> "I, Barry Pearson, am working against the western rule of law toward
> international socialist rule"? I haven't found that statement in
> Barry's writings and have never claimed to have. Barry denies it.
> That's what led to debate, i.e. many posts. I have been saying things
> to Barry that in one way or another many other people have said to him
> and people have dropped by making short comments in support of my
> position.
[snip]
I believe that the only person who has been consistently and repeatedly taking
the position that approaches other than litigation in child support awards, such
as having a central formula, are an attack on Western civilisation, is Roger
Gay. (Other people have expressed differences of opinion over other matters).
The degree of litigation seen in the USA is not a key indicator of Western
civilisation. "Taking on the state" in court is common to many countries, and
the ability to do so is necessary. But sorting out interpersonal disputes in
court to the degree that occurs in the USA is extreme, to the extent that the
USA appears to have perhaps 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head as the UK,
which in turn has far more than most Western nations. (I have even heard it said
that most lawyers in the world work in the USA, but can't prove or disprove
that). That is a comment, not a criticism - it is as valid as other approaches,
but it is simply not fundamental to Western civilisation, or to the definition
of a Western nation. This can be seen by reading what commentators and
historians across the Internet say about Western civili[s/z]ation (go look -
there is lots there). The ability of citizens to expect the rule of law to be
applied to them (due process), and to ensure this in court, is a common
ingredient. But litigation for other forms of dispute or analysis then drops
"below the horizon" of key factors. Market economies, free enterprise, critical
thinking free from ideology, personal rights & individual freedoms, are all
there, but they don't need or imply child support litigation.
Now, obviously someone may claim, of a nation that doesn't use litigation to
assess child support liabilities, "that isn't a true Western nation", but that
is simply the well known "No true Scotsman" fallacy!
The "No true Scotsman" argument is an argument of the form: "No Scotsman puts
sugar on his porridge". "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge". "Ah
yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge" . This form of argument is
a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") does not follow from
the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the
subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work. It
adjusts the definition of a Western nation to meet Roger Gay's opinion of how a
Western nation should behave.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/No+true+scotsman+fallacy
The UK tried sorting child support liabilities in court - it failed because it
ended up with too many people on welfare. It tried sorting it out with a formula
that attempted to take lots of circumstances into account - it failed both
because it was too hard to manage all the evidence, and because it was too
intrusive (for example into new partners' circumstances). Now it is trying a
simpler approach, which may work better than either of those. What is arguably
one of the least contentious child support systems around - Denmark - uses
simple guidelines.
RogerFGay
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Tiberius, I'm wondering why you started a new thread to make your
> > comment. There are many posts on this topic already in the existing
> > threads.
> >
>
> It was a precis; I don't think it should become a new discussion.
>
>
I guess the fooler was that you asked me a question ... "Roger, where
RogerFGay
thread. This isn't where the debate is taking place. I doubt anyone
would want to try to take advantage of that fact by posting an
argument in a crude attempt to bias a potential audience.
Tiberius
> "Tiberius" <sp...@mania-n.info> wrote in message
news:<ajfsb3$1b28sl$3...@ID-130298.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> in Barry's writings on his website or in the NG do you get these
> ideas?"
Roger,
Yes, I did put a question into the "précis". I think it was a relevant and
useful question and so was valid. But there is no doubt another view that a
question is outside the rules of a précis. My stated aim is and was to get
people to look again at the full discussion.
And towards that aim, I note you have just been manoeuvred into declaring
victory:
<<17th August:
You were nailed Barry; clean and simple. Unless
someone else has a question or comment,
I don't think it's worth being involved in an
eternal battle. You obviously have an agenda,
and you won't be stopped
by reason.>>
The logic leading up to this declaration of victory is to do with whether
taxation is an affront to Western society. Read it in the original thread;
I wouldn't want anyone to take it out of context.
Tiberius
Barry Pearson
> Roger,
>
> Yes, I did put a question into the "précis". I think it was a relevant
> and useful question and so was valid. But there is no doubt
> another view that a question is outside the rules of a précis. My
> stated aim is and was to get people to look again at the full
> discussion.
>
> And towards that aim, I note you have just been manoeuvred
> into declaring victory:
>
> <<17th August:
> You were nailed Barry; clean and simple. Unless
> someone else has a question or comment,
> I don't think it's worth being involved in an
> eternal battle. You obviously have an agenda,
> and you won't be stopped by reason.>>
>
> The logic leading up to this declaration of victory is to do with
> whether taxation is an affront to Western society. Read it in
> the original thread; I wouldn't want anyone to take it out of
> context.
I think the question of what Roger Gay believes is "an affront to
Western society" is key to this discussion. It is worth having a
look at what other commentators & historians believe "Western
civili[s/z]ation" is. There is plenty of material on the web, and it
can be compared with Roger's views. Below are some more
quotes of Roger's within the last 2 or 3 weeks, mostly in response
to articles that I have posted. I've provided the references to the
Google Groups archive so that the full context can be seen. These
statements can usefully be compared with what others on the web
identify as "Western civili[s/z]ation".
Before Roger started the thread "Child Support Reforms
International Conspiracy" I had thought our positions were very
close. He has been developing technology to help sort out
appropriate awards in the US litigation system. I had been evolving
a better formula to be used by the UK's child support system. I
have previously identified ways for such a public formula to be
implemented largely in the private sector. There is no implication
whatsoever that a public formula needs a public agency to operate it.
Yet what appears to me to be a small difference leads to the
following statements from Roger, which I disagree with:
"I mention in another article that child support reforms are not in
fact about child support, which is something I've hinted in many
of the posts I've given in response to yours.... Somebody is
murdering the western world".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02073...@posting.google.com
"I've seen this claim many times as a justification for centrally
controlled administrative systems. But I've never once seen
any credible evidence that the system of justice that western
civilization requires failed, nor any convincing evidence that
going to the extreme end of socialist / communist bureacratic
institutions is a better idea.... In other words, there is simply
no credible research whatsoever concluding that western
civilization failed and we must now rely on extreme socialist
bureacracy for better efficiency and fairness."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02073...@posting.google.com
"These policies that we're discussing were well developed in
the communist world and they were imported to the west.
There is a clear distinction between the system that defines
western civilization and the socialist system.... These policies
that we're discussing were well developed in the communist
world and they were imported to the west."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02073...@posting.google.com
"When you see government decreeing facts arbitrarily and
enforcing en masse judgments in contradiction to actual facts
in individual cases, you know you've crossed the border out
of western civilization.... It's just part of the story that pushed
a very large portion of the Russian economy into the black
market and contributed to the catastrophic failure of their system".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0207...@posting.google.com
"What you keep avoiding is reinstatement of individual rights and
the Common Law system. Without that, you're not in western
civilization".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02073...@posting.google.com
"Yes, child support reforms have been part of an international
movement.... The problem is that you have expressed no concern
for the fall of western civilization.... Did you know that communism,
in the minds of Marxist communists, is the perfect democracy?
It's pure democracy, and pure democracy sucks. It's one of the
most unstable, inhuman, and oppressive systems ever invented".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com
"You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working
toward international socialist rule.... You reject the western rule
of law. Look at what that's done for countries outside of the west.
Once you're outside the US and Western Europe (go a little farther
east) you'll find burning homes and bombed out buildings as the
direct result of raw group politics. You'll find (socialist) systems
that exploit group politics, intensify conflict, and then use one
group to hold another in check. You'll find rule by religous
sects and pseudo-religous war-lords related to oppression
and eternal war. You'll find poverty and lack of progress of all kinds".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com
"The problem is that western civilization has been abandoned
due to corruption".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com
"You have shown absolutely no support for those things in
your discussions here and you have returned fire with
anti-western propaganda when I've discussed them".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com
"It's obvious that we're dealing with non-western,
socialist type policies".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com
"Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push
internationalism (while its still heavily influenced by the
Marxist left)".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.02081...@posting.google.com
Tiberius
>
> Before Roger started the thread "Child Support Reforms
> International Conspiracy" I had thought our positions were very
> close. He has been developing technology to help sort out
> appropriate awards in the US litigation system. I had been evolving
> a better formula to be used by the UK's child support system.
Barry,
I used to think that you and Roger were very close until that. You are both
working hard to expose and correct a problem and I hate to see the way the
disagreement has blown up.
One of the things I particularly like on your web site is the bit about
social engineering (I forget what you called it) where you look at the
effects on the behaviour of individuals and society that central policies
have. You would think that politicians (who tend to be lawyers or
economists) would absorb these points with their mother's milk.
Roger,
(I hope you are listening), you have some very good points and I support
your basic aims. But I think you have overdone the "conspiracy attack on
the Western world" to the point where it is harming your cause. The
problems we have with Child Support in the UK and the USA are a result of
laziness and sloppy thinking on the part of our own politicians and the
mendacity of indigenous lobby groups, not a concerted attack by external
forces. We need to raise the intellectual level of the debate. The trouble
is that issuing a call to arms against an enemy (real or not) always tends
to lower the level of the debate.
HTH
Tiberius
RogerFGay
>
> Roger,
>
> (I hope you are listening), you have some very good points and I support
> your basic aims. But I think you have overdone the "conspiracy attack on
> the Western world" to the point where it is harming your cause. The
> problems we have with Child Support in the UK and the USA are a result of
> laziness and sloppy thinking on the part of our own politicians and the
> mendacity of indigenous lobby groups, not a concerted attack by external
> forces. We need to raise the intellectual level of the debate. The trouble
> is that issuing a call to arms against an enemy (real or not) always tends
> to lower the level of the debate.
>
> HTH
>
> Tiberius
Tiberius,
I guess I'm not in the mood to respond to what you've said right now.
I've studied the situation carefully, and am quite certain about what
I'm saying. Too many people guess at what's going on, or don't bother
to investigate thuroughly, and I'm a little tired of getting political
advise in response to factual information. I'm not a politician or a
political group. I research and report and I am absolutely certain in
my knowledge of what's going on.
wd
I have read many of your reports and articles.
And have verified the facts on my own.
Personally, i find you an accurate and articulate writter
and you generally know your subject matter well.
Keep up the good work.
~wd
RogerFGay
>
> I have read many of your reports and articles.
> And have verified the facts on my own.
> Personally, i find you an accurate and articulate writter
> and you generally know your subject matter well.
>
> Keep up the good work.
>
> ~wd
Thanks. I first discovered that the new child support scheme was
copied from Soviet Russia in the early 1990s. I've explained here in
this forum somewhere at some time, that back then I didn't say much
about it. After a few years I got to know who did it, when they did
it, and became familiar with the extreme leftist political bias in
some of their other work. For example, they claim that people in
Sweden are better off economically than the US or England even though
they're poorer. Sweden is more socialist than the US or England in
controlling and redistributing wealth. They're analysis is not at all
objective. It's just pushing socialism. There analysis doesn't explain
that Sweden is relatively poor, but produce a table in which it's
listed as best. You have to be a competent analyst to figure out that
their scale has to do with income compression. The more "equal" wealth
distribution is (regardless of how relatively poor or wealthy the
population is) the "better" they rate economic well-being. Pure
Marxism. They also run a project on the "Research on Child Well-Being"
in which they constantly push misusing "child support" as a vast
general wealth redistribution scheme. They've made all sorts of
bizarre and illegal proposals like that over the years.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ZOQ89.2298$cg3.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > Before Roger started the thread "Child Support Reforms
> > International Conspiracy" I had thought our positions were very
> > close. He has been developing technology to help sort out
> > appropriate awards in the US litigation system. I had been evolving
> > a better formula to be used by the UK's child support system.
>
> Barry,
>
> I used to think that you and Roger were very close until that. You are both
> working hard to expose and correct a problem and I hate to see the way the
> disagreement has blown up.
So do I. It appears to have blown up over something as insignificant as whether
child support awards should be decided by litigation or by formula. How much
difference does this actually make in practice to the people affected?
> One of the things I particularly like on your web site is the bit about
> social engineering (I forget what you called it) where you look at the
> effects on the behaviour of individuals and society that central policies
> have. You would think that politicians (who tend to be lawyers or
> economists) would absorb these points with their mother's milk.
Yes! This is vital. You have to look at a guidelines or formula and think what
would happen if one of the people involved made a small change - what effect
would this have? If the effect is large, then that person may be incented to
behave in that way, which may not be the best way for most people concerned. It
isn't sufficient to have a technology that may satisify certain principles, it
is also important that it is "well behaved", so that undesirable behaviour is
not rewarded.
> Roger,
>
> (I hope you are listening), you have some very good points and I support
> your basic aims. But I think you have overdone the "conspiracy attack on
> the Western world" to the point where it is harming your cause. The
> problems we have with Child Support in the UK and the USA are a result of
> laziness and sloppy thinking on the part of our own politicians and the
> mendacity of indigenous lobby groups, not a concerted attack by external
> forces. We need to raise the intellectual level of the debate. The trouble
> is that issuing a call to arms against an enemy (real or not) always tends
> to lower the level of the debate.
That is CERTAINLY true about the UK. We are suffering from sloppy legislation
that got diverted towards social security expenditure reduction - an extreme
anti-socialist agenda that failed. This was nothing to do with women's issues,
or child's interests, etc!
We need to ask "what should child support be like during the 21st Century?" We
need to rethink many of our assumptions & prejudices.
Bob
Barry Pearson wrote:
> "Tiberius" <sp...@mania-n.info> wrote in message
>>I used to think that you and Roger were very close until that. You are both
>>working hard to expose and correct a problem and I hate to see the way the
>>disagreement has blown up.
>>
>
> So do I. It appears to have blown up over something as insignificant as whether
> child support awards should be decided by litigation or by formula. How much
> difference does this actually make in practice to the people affected?
You can't make wrong into right by doing it more effectively. Absentee
"child support" is a FAILED feminist experiment designed to enslave men
as indentured servants. It has caused the destruction of millions of
families and hurt tens of millions of children, girls and boys. It
doesn't matter how you decide "child support." It's WRONG to enslave
men by forcing them into 20 years of indentured servitude.
Men can support our children like we did for millennia before the 20th
century experiment. Men can provide food and shelter for our kids.
>>One of the things I particularly like on your web site is the bit about
>>social engineering (I forget what you called it) where you look at the
>>effects on the behaviour of individuals and society that central policies
>>have. You would think that politicians (who tend to be lawyers or
>>economists) would absorb these points with their mother's milk.
>>
>
> Yes! This is vital. You have to look at a guidelines or formula and think what
> would happen if one of the people involved made a small change - what effect
> would this have? If the effect is large, then that person may be incented to
> behave in that way, which may not be the best way for most people concerned. It
> isn't sufficient to have a technology that may satisify certain principles, it
> is also important that it is "well behaved", so that undesirable behaviour is
> not rewarded.
You can't make WRONG into right by doing WRONG more effectively.
Bob
RogerFGay
>
>
> You can't make WRONG into right by doing WRONG more effectively.
>
>
> Bob
Excellent summary statement. One also cannot turn Communist centrally
controlled arbitrary en mass manipulation into a policy that conforms
to western common law requirements just by calling it "efficient.".
The commies were always full of efficiency, so were the Nazis. That's
there thing. Of course, overwhelming bureacracy never was efficient
and effictive, but they liked to imagine that it was in support of
their ideology.
Here's what's missing: Do the right thing.
Nicky
> "child support" is a FAILED feminist experiment designed to enslave men
> as indentured servants. It has caused the destruction of millions of
> families and hurt tens of millions of children, girls and boys. It
> doesn't matter how you decide "child support." It's WRONG to enslave
> men by forcing them into 20 years of indentured servitude.
Child support is designed to -
a) give children the chance of a reasonable standard of living
b) require absentee parents to continue to take some responsibility for
their children's welfare
c) save the state money
None of these reasons are particularly feminist.
Given that on average women's income drops by 28% after divorce/separation
while men's rises it is extremely unlikely that any woman would break up a
family in pursuit of financial advantage - so the concept of child support
doesn't cause the destruction of families.
> Men can support our children like we did for millennia before the 20th
> century experiment. Men can provide food and shelter for our kids.
Actually, absent fathers have been providing financial support for their
families for centuries.
Nicky
Bob
Nicky wrote:
>>You can't make wrong into right by doing it more effectively. Absentee
>>"child support" is a FAILED feminist experiment designed to enslave men
>>as indentured servants. It has caused the destruction of millions of
>>families and hurt tens of millions of children, girls and boys. It
>>doesn't matter how you decide "child support." It's WRONG to enslave
>>men by forcing them into 20 years of indentured servitude.
>>
>
> Child support is designed to -
> a) give children the chance of a reasonable standard of living
> b) require absentee parents to continue to take some responsibility for
> their children's welfare
> c) save the state money
> None of these reasons are particularly feminist.
Wrong! The current so called "child support" laws are ENTIRELY
feminist. For most of human history a man provided for "supported" his
child by providing food, shelter, etc., for the child. That is what
supporting a child is. A woman who wanted the father to support a child
brought the child to his/her father to be supported.
The current obscene feminist hate law called "child support" is not
about supporting a child at all. It is about taking the man's money so
the mother can support the child while depriving the child of his/her
father. The current obscene feminist hate law was conceived of in the
middle of the 19th century and became law only in the middle of the 20th
century. Since then it has served to DESTROY millions of families,
badly hurt millions and millions of children and ruin the lives of
uncounted men.
> Given that on average women's income drops by 28% after divorce/separation
> while men's rises it is extremely unlikely that any woman would break up a
> family in pursuit of financial advantage - so the concept of child support
> doesn't cause the destruction of families.
Repeating feminist hate propaganda lies about income dropping only
serves to demonstrate that your other arguments are equally invalid.
>>Men can support our children like we did for millennia before the 20th
>>century experiment. Men can provide food and shelter for our kids.
>>
>
> Actually, absent fathers have been providing financial support for their
> families for centuries.
> Nicky
Bring the child to his/her father for support. If the woman wants to
support the child herself it's HER RESPONSIBILITY! Blaming men, binding
men into indentured servitude, a form of slavery, and shirking her
responsibility is NOT child support.
You can't make WRONG into right by doing WRONG more effectively. The
whole feminist hate program called "absentee child support" is a failed
experiment that needs to be ended.
Bob
Paul Fritz
"Nicky" <ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:akl5tb$188$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > You can't make wrong into right by doing it more effectively. Absentee
> > "child support" is a FAILED feminist experiment designed to enslave men
> > as indentured servants. It has caused the destruction of millions of
> > families and hurt tens of millions of children, girls and boys. It
> > doesn't matter how you decide "child support." It's WRONG to enslave
> > men by forcing them into 20 years of indentured servitude.
>
> Child support is designed to -
> a) give children the chance of a reasonable standard of living
i.e. special priveleges for children of divorce, since children of intact
families have no such guarnatee
> b) require absentee parents to continue to take some responsibility for
> their children's welfare
95% of the parents would not be absentee except for being forced to by the
state.
> c) save the state money
So if you believe that, wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn???
>
> None of these reasons are particularly feminist.
>
> Given that on average women's income drops by 28% after
divorce/separation
> while men's rises it is extremely unlikely that any woman would break up
a
> family in pursuit of financial advantage - so the concept of child
support
> doesn't cause the destruction of families.
Too bad you still believe in patently wrong statistics.......those figures
were debunked a long time ago
>
> > Men can support our children like we did for millennia before the 20th
> > century experiment. Men can provide food and shelter for our kids.
>
> Actually, absent fathers have been providing financial support for their
> families for centuries.
Actually, "mommy custody" is a recent occurance, fathers were allmost
always given custody, which resulted in a lot less social problems than the
"mommiy custody" trend of today.
>
> Nicky
>
>
Any more lies or misinformation you care to post will happily be refuted
Nicky
> > a) give children the chance of a reasonable standard of living
> > b) require absentee parents to continue to take some responsibility for
> > their children's welfare
> > c) save the state money
> > None of these reasons are particularly feminist.
> Wrong! The current so called "child support" laws are ENTIRELY
> feminist.
In what way?
> For most of human history a man provided for "supported" his
> child by providing food, shelter, etc., for the child.
Or by providing money to support the child in his absence.
> That is what
> supporting a child is. A woman who wanted the father to support a child
> brought the child to his/her father to be supported.
That system was also used.
> The current obscene feminist hate law called "child support" is not
> about supporting a child at all. It is about taking the man's money so
> the mother can support the child while depriving the child of his/her
> father. The current obscene feminist hate law was conceived of in the
> middle of the 19th century and became law only in the middle of the 20th
> century.
Does the possibility that there was a reason for the current system of child
support being created occur to you?
Like for instance that although most fathers are decent enough to wish to
support there children there are a few who aren't and that a law was needed
to make those irresponsible fathers face up to their responsibilities.
And in the 19th Century women didn't even have the vote, so it couldn't
exactly be a feminist law, could it?
> Since then it has served to DESTROY millions of families,
How does child support destroy families?
> badly hurt millions and millions of children and
Child support doesn't hurt children. It provides financial support for them.
> ruin the lives of uncounted men.
How does having to pay to support your own children ruin your life?
> > Given that on average women's income drops by 28% after
divorce/separation
> > while men's rises it is extremely unlikely that any woman would break up
a
> > family in pursuit of financial advantage - so the concept of child
support
> > doesn't cause the destruction of families.
> Repeating feminist hate propaganda lies about income dropping only
> serves to demonstrate that your other arguments are equally invalid.
Government statistics actually.
> >>Men can support our children like we did for millennia before the 20th
> >>century experiment. Men can provide food and shelter for our kids.
> > Actually, absent fathers have been providing financial support for their
> > families for centuries.
> Bring the child to his/her father for support.
That is an option - shared custody does exist. But it does tend to mean that
both parents have to work part time, which can be tricky to arrange.
Child support is paid where one parent is primary carer. A primary carer has
less opportunity to earn money due to the time spent taking care of the
child, so the other parent is required to make a contribution towards the
cost of the child's upbringing.
> If the woman wants to
> support the child herself it's HER RESPONSIBILITY! Blaming men, binding
> men into indentured servitude, a form of slavery, and shirking her
> responsibility is NOT child support.
Well, men are 50% responsible for the creation of children, why shouldn't
they be responsible for supporting them?
Most men care about their children's welfare and are quite happy to support
them.
> You can't make WRONG into right by doing WRONG more effectively. The
> whole feminist hate program called "absentee child support" is a failed
> experiment that needs to be ended.
Actually it works quite well.
Most fathers don't object to the principle of supporting their own children.
The CSA causes problems because it's aim is to reduce the cost to the state.
If it was focused on the welfare of the children instead then most of the
problems would disappear.
Nicky
> > a) give children the chance of a reasonable standard of living
> i.e. special priveleges for children of divorce, since children of intact
> families have no such guarnatee
There is a guaranteed minimum income level provided for all families with
children.
You are correct that no law forces a man to support his children when he
lives in the same house with them - although there is the possibility of his
being prosecuted for neglect or cruelty.
> > b) require absentee parents to continue to take some responsibility for
> > their children's welfare
> 95% of the parents would not be absentee except for being forced to by the
> state.
With a current divorce rate of 50% that seems highly unlikely to be true.
How does the state force parents to be absentee?
> > c) save the state money
> So if you believe that, wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn???
I'm not sure whether it does actually save the state money, but that was one
of the aims of the system.
> > None of these reasons are particularly feminist.
> >
> > Given that on average women's income drops by 28% after
> divorce/separation
> > while men's rises it is extremely unlikely that any woman would break up
> a
> > family in pursuit of financial advantage - so the concept of child
> support
> > doesn't cause the destruction of families.
> Too bad you still believe in patently wrong statistics.......those figures
> were debunked a long time ago
They were published only a couple of months ago.
And in all the divorced couples I know the mother and children have suffered
a drop in standard of living.
> Actually, "mommy custody" is a recent occurance, fathers were allmost
> always given custody, which resulted in a lot less social problems than
the
> "mommiy custody" trend of today.
Custody is a complex issue.
I'd tend to support the idea that whoever was primary carer for the child
before a separation should remain as the primary carer because that would be
less disruptive for the child, but there are alternative systems which also
work well.
As in all these things, the welfare of the child should be the most
important consideration.
Social problems have always existed, and despite current right-wing
propaganda they are not exclusively caused by single parents.
Paul Fritz
> > > Child support is designed to -
> > > a) give children the chance of a reasonable standard of living
> > i.e. special priveleges for children of divorce, since children of
intact
> > families have no such guarnatee
>
> There is a guaranteed minimum income level provided for all families with
> children.
Children in intact families are NOT guaranteed any percentage of their
parents income.
>
> You are correct that no law forces a man to support his children when he
> lives in the same house with them - although there is the possibility of
his
> being prosecuted for neglect or cruelty.
And no law requires CS to be spent on the children by CP mommy. Child
support is not the correct name......mommy support is.
>
> > > b) require absentee parents to continue to take some responsibility
for
> > > their children's welfare
> > 95% of the parents would not be absentee except for being forced to by
the
> > state.
>
> With a current divorce rate of 50% that seems highly unlikely to be true.
> How does the state force parents to be absentee?
Free hint for the clueless.....with women wanting the majority of the
divorces, and fathers being forced out of their childrens' lives and
limited to a few days a month, tell another lie that the state is not
creating absentee fathers.
>
> > > c) save the state money
> > So if you believe that, wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn???
>
> I'm not sure whether it does actually save the state money, but that was
one
> of the aims of the system.
>
> > > None of these reasons are particularly feminist.
> > >
> > > Given that on average women's income drops by 28% after
> > divorce/separation
> > > while men's rises it is extremely unlikely that any woman would break
up
> > a
> > > family in pursuit of financial advantage - so the concept of child
> > support
> > > doesn't cause the destruction of families.
> > Too bad you still believe in patently wrong statistics.......those
figures
> > were debunked a long time ago
>
> They were published only a couple of months ago.
Care to provide the cites for that
as for the "break up of marriage"
(1) Wolfgang Hirczy, in an April 5, 1996, posting in the Family Law list,
summarized the data as indicating that in two thirds of cases wives dump
husbands. The main source he cites is a 1993 study by Braver, Whitely and
Ng, which asked 378 families "Which one of you was the first to want out of
the marriage, you or your ex?"
(2) A 1991 book, "Divided Families," by Furstenberg and Cherlin, which says
that "four out of five marriages ended unilaterally, usually at the wife's
insistence."
(3) According to Kimbrell, "The Masculine Mystique," (1995) mothers
initiate
divorce actions at "over twice the rate of men." (Comment: For some reason,
the only specific figure in the relevant footnote is to Texas statistics
indicating that 75 percent, not 66 percent, of divorces are initiated by
mothers.)
(4) Susan Faludi, in "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women"
(1991) says: "From the start, men are less anxious to untie the knot than
women: in national surveys, less than a third of divorced men say they were
the spouse who wanted the divorce, while women report they were the ones
actively seeking divorce 55 to 66 percent of the time." Faludi cites a
Gallop poll survey in support of this.
(5) Wallerstein and Kelly said in "Surviving the Breakup" (1980) that
"unlike the decision to marry, the decision to divorce rarely occurs by
mutual consent in families with children. Customarily, one partner wants to
get out of the marriage with a great deal more passion than the other. Many
times, only one partner wants to get out at all. For instance, in our study
women took the final step to terminate the marriage in three-fourths of the
cases, while nearly half the husbands strongly opposed their decision." The
follow-up book, "Second Chances" (1989), by Wallerstein and Blakeslee,
talks
about the serious problems divorce creates for men, and comments that "it
is
no coincidence that every man who sought a divorce in this study had
another
woman waiting in the wings."
(6) On the anecdotal level, Anne P. Mitchell, a California attorney and the
director of the Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange (FREE), said in a
March
29, 1995, posting: "First, in both my experience as a family law attorney,
and as the director of FREE, I can say categorically that yes, women DO
file
for divorce far more frequently than men. It is also true, particularly
given the advent of `no fault' divorce, that the reason they give is often
`I'm just not happy' or `I need to find myself and grow.' I can also
honestly say that in eight years of being in the field, I can count on ONE
HAND the number of men who have initiated divorce for a reason such as `I
just need to find myself' or `I am not happy.'"
(7) There seems little doubt that wives file divorce papers in the great
majority of cases. There is little point in assembling detailed data about
this, since the simple issue of who files the papers seems to have little
relevance to who is the dumper and who the dumpee. However, Anne Mitchell
on
June 12, 1996, filed information about this, dating from a 1986 study by
the
National Center for Health Statistics which she said was the most recent
source. This study showed that women file for divorce nearly twice as often
as do men, when comparing individual, versus joint, requests for
dissolution
of marriage. NCHS Statistician Barbara Foley Wilson commented that "women
traditionally have predominated in filing divorce petitions," adding that
various studies of divorcing partners "have showed that the woman is more
often dissatisfied with the marriage than the man."
BTW, if there was not an monetary incentive for divorce for women, why did
the divorce rate drop in states that mandated presumtive joint custody?
>
> And in all the divorced couples I know the mother and children have
suffered
> a drop in standard of living.
As usual, personal ancedotes have no validity.
>
> > Actually, "mommy custody" is a recent occurance, fathers were allmost
> > always given custody, which resulted in a lot less social problems than
> the
> > "mommiy custody" trend of today.
>
> Custody is a complex issue.
No it is not,
> I'd tend to support the idea that whoever was primary carer for the child
> before a separation should remain as the primary carer because that would
be
> less disruptive for the child, but there are alternative systems which
also
> work well.
> As in all these things, the welfare of the child should be the most
> important consideration.
Bull and bull...."primary caretaker" is a not so clever redefinition of the
"tender years" doctrine, with the assignment of "primary caretaking" roles
limited to what mommy traditionally does.....it is a load of bulls**t
>
> Social problems have always existed, and despite current right-wing
> propaganda they are not exclusively caused by single parents.
It has nothing to do with "right wing" propaganda, and everything to do
with wrong headed guvmint social engineering.......the single greatest
possible harm to a child is growing up in a single mother household.
>
>
>
John Hill
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And in all the divorced couples I know the mother and children have suffered
>a drop in standard of living.
Ah first it was a hard figure, now it is a sample based on your own
aquantainces. Hell, that isn't even anecdotal
JH
John Hill
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You are correct that no law forces a man to support his children when he
>lives in the same house with them - although there is the possibility of his
>being prosecuted for neglect or cruelty.
Neglect is almost totally a maternal crime and is the most common
(well over 50% IIRC) form of child abuse.
As for cruelty I would suggest that that is almost exclusively a
maternal preserve as well.
JH
John Hill
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Custody is a complex issue.
Great you got one thing right
>I'd tend to support the idea that whoever was primary carer for the child
>before a separation should remain as the primary carer because that would be
>less disruptive for the child, but there are alternative systems which also
>work well.
Err in intact families there are 2 parents.
>As in all these things, the welfare of the child should be the most
>important consideration.
So you've been having us on and you Do support shared parenting then.
JH
Bob
Nicky wrote:
>>>Child support is designed to -
>>>a) give children the chance of a reasonable standard of living
>>>b) require absentee parents to continue to take some responsibility for
>>>their children's welfare
>>>c) save the state money
>>>None of these reasons are particularly feminist.
>>>
>>Wrong! The current so called "child support" laws are ENTIRELY
>>feminist.
>>
>
> In what way?
>
>
>>For most of human history a man provided for "supported" his
>>child by providing food, shelter, etc., for the child.
>>
>
> Or by providing money to support the child in his absence.
Nope. Children were brought to the father for support if his support
was wanted. The concept of sending money is really recent. Forcing men
to send money is radical in the last century.
>>That is what
>>supporting a child is. A woman who wanted the father to support a child
>>brought the child to his/her father to be supported.
>>
> That system was also used.
That was the way it was. In addition many children from poor parents
were brought to households of rich patrons or Lords to work and be
supported.
>>The current obscene feminist hate law called "child support" is not
>>about supporting a child at all. It is about taking the man's money so
>>the mother can support the child while depriving the child of his/her
>>father. The current obscene feminist hate law was conceived of in the
>>middle of the 19th century and became law only in the middle of the 20th
>>century.
>>
>
> Does the possibility that there was a reason for the current system of child
> support being created occur to you?
I already mentioned that. It was an idea of feminists published in the
middle of the 19th century, for women to be able to leave their
husbands, take his children, and still be supported. It took feminist
lobbies about a century to make it into law.
> Like for instance that although most fathers are decent enough to wish to
> support there children there are a few who aren't and that a law was needed
> to make those irresponsible fathers face up to their responsibilitie.
Misandrist stereotypes about fathers do not further your arguments.
Fathers are as likely as mothers to wish to support their children.
Fathers are often emotionally devastated under the current system that
takes children from their fathers. Sexist stereotypes about fathers are
just more hate speech.
> And in the 19th Century women didn't even have the vote, so it couldn't
> exactly be a feminist law, could it?
Don't kid yourself. Feminists in the 19th century were a major force
behind abolition of slavery, laws against prostitution, and many other
things. Prohibition of alcohol was not accomplished because women had a
vote, but because women's groups like the WCTU demanded it.
>>Since then it has served to DESTROY millions of families,
>>
> How does child support destroy families?
The goal and purpose of the present system is to facilitate women to
leave their husband and take the children. It provides economic
incentive to destroy families. That is the purpose of the current laws.
>>badly hurt millions and millions of children and
>>
> Child support doesn't hurt children. It provides financial support for them.
Taking children from their father hurts children. A growing mountain of
evidence shows that children do worse in every measurable part of life
if they do not live with their father.
>>ruin the lives of uncounted men.
>>
> How does having to pay to support your own children ruin your life?
Indentured servitude, a form of slavery, combined with being deprived of
your children is a ruined life. That is the universal result of current
failed feminist law.
>>>Given that on average women's income drops by 28% after
>>>
> divorce/separation
>
>>>while men's rises it is extremely unlikely that any woman would break up
>>>
> a
>
>>>family in pursuit of financial advantage - so the concept of child
>>>
> support
>
>>>doesn't cause the destruction of families.
>>>
>>Repeating feminist hate propaganda lies about income dropping only
>>serves to demonstrate that your other arguments are equally invalid.
>>
>
> Government statistics actually.
LIES actually. Women do better economically and emotionally than men
after divorce. Repeating LIES does not further your arguments. LIES
only serve to show your misandrist prejudice.
>>>>Men can support our children like we did for millennia before the 20th
>>>>century experiment. Men can provide food and shelter for our kids.
>>>>
>>>Actually, absent fathers have been providing financial support for their
>>>families for centuries.
>>>
>>Bring the child to his/her father for support.
>>
>
> That is an option - shared custody does exist. But it does tend to mean that
> both parents have to work part time, which can be tricky to arrange.
More cowshit about "shared custody" does not improve the child's life,
nor bring the child to his/her father for support. The current system
is a FAILURE for children and men. In the long run it hurts millions of
girls and thereby hurts the next generation of women too.
> Child support is paid where one parent is primary carer. A primary carer has
> less opportunity to earn money due to the time spent taking care of the
> child, so the other parent is required to make a contribution towards the
> cost of the child's upbringing.
Paid "absentee child support" is really a euphemism for enslaving men to
pay women. It hurts millions and millions of children.
When women start taking responsibility for their own choices and
decisions instead of blaming the nearest available man they will be on
the road to being equal.
>>If the woman wants to
>>support the child herself it's HER RESPONSIBILITY! Blaming men, binding
>>men into indentured servitude, a form of slavery, and shirking her
>>responsibility is NOT child support.
>>
>
> Well, men are 50% responsible for the creation of children, why shouldn't
> they be responsible for supporting them?
> Most men care about their children's welfare and are quite happy to support
> them.
Women have had exclusive "choice" for longer than the lives of today's
mothers. Those who make the decisions are responsible. Enslaving men
because of a woman's choice is abhorrent. The laws of so called "child
support" destroy lives and harm millions and millions of children.
>>You can't make WRONG into right by doing WRONG more effectively. The
>>whole feminist hate program called "absentee child support" is a failed
>>experiment that needs to be ended.
>>
>
> Actually it works quite well.
> Most fathers don't object to the principle of supporting their own children.
Most fathers would love to support their children, and are prevented fro
doing so by feminist hate laws intended to enslave men and destroy
families. That is their intended purpose, and that is their universal
result.
> The CSA causes problems because it's aim is to reduce the cost to the state.
> If it was focused on the welfare of the children instead then most of the
> problems would disappear.
You cant make WRONG into right by doing WRONG more effectively. CSA is
doing WRONG most of the time. Like the SS troops finding more efficient
ways to send Jews to "labor" camps it doesn't make it right to find more
effective ways to enslave men. CSA is doing wrong.
Bob
Nicky
suffered
> >a drop in standard of living.
> Ah first it was a hard figure, now it is a sample based on your own
> aquantainces.
No, it's both.
There are general statistics available.
It also happens to apply in all the cases of divorced couples I know
personally.
Nicky
> >before a separation should remain as the primary carer because that would
be
> >less disruptive for the child, but there are alternative systems which
also
> >work well.
> Err in intact families there are 2 parents.
Yes, but the amount of time they spend with the children can vary - if one
is working and the other is staying home with the children for example.
> >As in all these things, the welfare of the child should be the most
> >important consideration.
> So you've been having us on and you Do support shared parenting then.
Why did you think I didn't?
It can work well in some cases.
It's a shame there aren't more job shares and secure part-time jobs
available so more parents can do it.
Nicky
> Nope. Children were brought to the father for support if his support
> was wanted. The concept of sending money is really recent. Forcing men
> to send money is radical in the last century.
How do you think the children of soldiers, sailors, international
travellers, etc, etc used to be supported then?
> > Does the possibility that there was a reason for the current system of
child
> > support being created occur to you?
> I already mentioned that. It was an idea of feminists published in the
> middle of the 19th century,
> for women to be able to leave their
> husbands, take his children, and still be supported.
If a marriage breaks down there should be the opportunity for the couple to
separate without the wife and children starving as a result.
Being brought up by parents who are unhappy together but are unable to
separate for financial reasons is not good for children
> > Like for instance that although most fathers are decent enough to wish
to
> > support there children there are a few who aren't and that a law was
needed
> > to make those irresponsible fathers face up to their responsibilitie.
> Misandrist stereotypes about fathers do not further your arguments.
What exactly is misandrist about saying "most fathers are decent enough to
wish to support there children" ?
> Fathers are as likely as mothers to wish to support their children.
Which is what I just said.
It's only the few whose priority is not their children's welfare who refuse
to pay financial support.
> Fathers are often emotionally devastated under the current system that
> takes children from their fathers. Sexist stereotypes about fathers are
> just more hate speech.
Did you actually read what I said?
It was "most fathers are decent enough to wish to support there children"
Fathers normally continue to see their children after a marriage breaks down
unless a court can be persuaded that this is not in the children's best
interests (ie if the father is violent or mentally unstable), so the current
system does not take children from their fathers.
> > And in the 19th Century women didn't even have the vote, so it couldn't
> > exactly be a feminist law, could it?
> Don't kid yourself. Feminists in the 19th century were a major force
> behind abolition of slavery, laws against prostitution, and many other
> things. Prohibition of alcohol was not accomplished because women had a
> vote, but because women's groups like the WCTU demanded it.
So the abolition of slavery is a feminist plot too?
> >>Since then it has served to DESTROY millions of families,
> > How does child support destroy families?
> The goal and purpose of the present system is to facilitate women to
> leave their husband and take the children.
Only if the marriage has broken down.
> It provides economic
> incentive to destroy families.
How is a drop in income for women after divorce an economic incentive for
women to destroy families? It might possibly, if we use your argument, be an
economic incentive for men as, on average, they end up financially better
off after a divorce.
But on the whole people don't get married for the money, nor do they divorce
for the money.
Caring for children is a lot of hard work, with evening and night shifts as
standard, and the amounts of child support which are paid to primary carers
do not represent an excessive (or even reasonable) wage for the job, so it
seems likely that most people care for their children because they love
them, not because it pays better than having any other job.
> > Child support doesn't hurt children. It provides financial support for
them.
> Taking children from their father hurts children.
Child support doesn't take children from their fathers.
Custody is decided separately from child support.
> A growing mountain of
> evidence shows that children do worse in every measurable part of life
> if they do not live with their father.
There's evidence that the lack of a consistent male role model is a problem,
but given that most children whose parents are divorced continue to see
their fathers regularly they don't lack a consistent male role model.
Poverty also has adverse effects on children - one way to solve this would
be to make the minimum child support payments higher.
Many fathers already voluntarily make payments higher than the minimum
level.
> >>ruin the lives of uncounted men.
> > How does having to pay to support your own children ruin your life?
> Indentured servitude, a form of slavery, combined with being deprived of
> your children is a ruined life. That is the universal result of current
> failed feminist law.
You think that having to support your own children is slavery? Don't you
feel that they have a right to expect anything from you?
And men only get deprived of their children if a court can be convinced that
they are unsuitable to have contact with them for a serious reason such as
being a danger to them.
> > Government statistics actually.
> LIES actually. Women do better economically and emotionally than men
> after divorce. Repeating LIES does not further your arguments. LIES
> only serve to show your misandrist prejudice.
On average women tend to do better emotionally after divorce, but that seems
to be because more divorces are caused by men behaving badly within the
marriage.
If one partner suffers as a result of the behaviour of the other within the
marriage then it is likely that a divorce will improve their emotional
wellbeing.
> > That is an option - shared custody does exist. But it does tend to mean
that
> > both parents have to work part time, which can be tricky to arrange.
> More cowshit about "shared custody" does not improve the child's life,
> nor bring the child to his/her father for support. The current system
> is a FAILURE for children and men. In the long run it hurts millions of
> girls and thereby hurts the next generation of women too.
A lot of today's women have divorced parents, and it doesn't seem to be
causing them any problems.
> > Child support is paid where one parent is primary carer. A primary carer
has
> > less opportunity to earn money due to the time spent taking care of the
> > child, so the other parent is required to make a contribution towards
the
> > cost of the child's upbringing.
> Paid "absentee child support" is really a euphemism for enslaving men to
> pay women. It hurts millions and millions of children.
Child support hardly represents a fair minimum wage if you consider taking
care of children as a job.
Absentee fathers contribute less money to their children than fathers who
live with the children.
> When women start taking responsibility for their own choices and
> decisions instead of blaming the nearest available man they will be on
> the road to being equal.
What's that got to do with child support?
> > Well, men are 50% responsible for the creation of children, why
shouldn't
> > they be responsible for supporting them?
> > Most men care about their children's welfare and are quite happy to
support
> > them.
> Women have had exclusive "choice" for longer than the lives of today's
> mothers. Those who make the decisions are responsible. Enslaving men
> because of a woman's choice is abhorrent. The laws of so called "child
> support" destroy lives and harm millions and millions of children.
In the first place a man is not required to support children unless there
were reasonable grounds for suspecting that he is the father of the
children. On the whole this means that he will have chosen to have sex with
the mother.
So, if you really don't want to pay child support the first thing to
consider is being careful who you choose to have sex with. Choosing to use
condoms or to have a vasectomy can also reduce your risk of having to pay
child support (although neither are 100% reliable).
There are lots of choices men can make to avoid paying child support.
And, yet again, child support does not harm children, it provides money to
feed, clothe and house them.
> > Actually it works quite well.
> > Most fathers don't object to the principle of supporting their own
children.
> Most fathers would love to support their children, and are prevented fro
> doing so by feminist hate laws intended to enslave men and destroy
> families. That is their intended purpose, and that is their universal
> result.
Most fathers do support their children, and do not regard themselves as
being "enslaved" as a result.
> > The CSA causes problems because it's aim is to reduce the cost to the
state.
> > If it was focused on the welfare of the children instead then most of
the
> > problems would disappear.
> You cant make WRONG into right by doing WRONG more effectively. CSA is
> doing WRONG most of the time. Like the SS troops finding more efficient
> ways to send Jews to "labor" camps it doesn't make it right to find more
> effective ways to enslave men. CSA is doing wrong.
How is trying to prevent children from living in poverty comparable to
murdering people?
Nicky
with
> > children.
> Children in intact families are NOT guaranteed any percentage of their
> parents income.
No, but in the UK households with children in are guaranteed a minimum level
of income by the Benefits system.
> > You are correct that no law forces a man to support his children when he
> > lives in the same house with them - although there is the possibility of
> his
> > being prosecuted for neglect or cruelty.
> And no law requires CS to be spent on the children by CP mommy. Child
> support is not the correct name......mommy support is.
Given that child support payments are hardly very generous and caring for
children is hard work money is unlikely to be the primary motive for caring
for children.
> > With a current divorce rate of 50% that seems highly unlikely to be
true.
> > How does the state force parents to be absentee?
> Free hint for the clueless.....with women wanting the majority of the
> divorces,
Well, since you need grounds for a divorce perhaps you could consider the
possibility that women being the main petitioners might mean that in most
cases men have given them grounds for divorce by behaving badly?
> and fathers being forced out of their childrens' lives and
> limited to a few days a month, tell another lie that the state is not
> creating absentee fathers.
Exact custody arrangements vary from case to case. I don't know of any
fathers who see their children less than once a week, except for one who
chose not to have contact at all after he was offered it.
> (1) Wolfgang Hirczy, in an April 5, 1996, posting in the Family Law list,
> summarized the data as indicating that in two thirds of cases wives dump
> husbands. The main source he cites is a 1993 study by Braver, Whitely and
> Ng, which asked 378 families "Which one of you was the first to want out
of
> the marriage, you or your ex?"
Well, the person who wished to end the marriages was not necesarily the
person who had caused the problems which led to the marriage ending. You
need grounds for a divorce, so if the majority of divorce petitions are made
by women it tends to imply that the majority of divorces are made on the
grounds of men's behaviour in the marriage.
> various studies of divorcing partners "have showed that the woman is more
> often dissatisfied with the marriage than the man."
So, if you think it's important to keep families together perhaps it would
be a good idea to find out why women are dissatisfied by marriage and what
their husbands could do to help improve the situation.
> > I'd tend to support the idea that whoever was primary carer for the
child
> > before a separation should remain as the primary carer because that
would
> be
> > less disruptive for the child, but there are alternative systems which
> also
> > work well.
> > As in all these things, the welfare of the child should be the most
> > important consideration.
> Bull and bull...."primary caretaker" is a not so clever redefinition of
the
> "tender years" doctrine, with the assignment of "primary caretaking" roles
> limited to what mommy traditionally does.....it is a load of bulls**t
There are some families where the father is primary carer.
And I'm surprised that you don't think the child's welfare should be
important.
> > Social problems have always existed, and despite current right-wing
> > propaganda they are not exclusively caused by single parents.
> It has nothing to do with "right wing" propaganda, and everything to do
> with wrong headed guvmint social engineering.......the single greatest
> possible harm to a child is growing up in a single mother household.
No, it's mostly poverty and growing up in a deprived area which cause harm
to children and cause social problems.
Lack of a male role model can cause behavioural problems, but the male role
model doesn't have to be permanently resident with the child, and it doesn't
have to be the child's father - grandfathers, uncles, stepfathers etc, etc
can do the job just as well.
John Hill
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ah first it was a hard figure, now it is a sample based on your own
>> aquantainces.
>
>No, it's both.
>There are general statistics available.
>It also happens to apply in all the cases of divorced couples I know
>personally.
Sophistry
JH
John Hill
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Err in intact families there are 2 parents.
>
>Yes, but the amount of time they spend with the children can vary - if one
>is working and the other is staying home with the children for example.
And if the children are at school and the parent at work cares for
them when not at work. Ah sounds like most families.
JH
Bob
Nicky wrote:
> Given that child support payments are hardly very generous and caring for
> children is hard work money is unlikely to be the primary motive for caring
> for children.
In that case these small payments are hardly justifciation for anything
and ought to be just eliminated as a waste of time.
Bob
Bob
Nicky wrote:
>>>Or by providing money to support the child in his absence.
> If a marriage breaks down there should be the opportunity for the couple to
> separate without the wife and children starving as a result.
If the wife leaves her home and husband its HER responsibility. It does
not justify making the former husband into an indentured servant (a form
of slavery) for the next 20 years to support her.
It also is not a "right" for her to take the children from THEIR home.
> Being brought up by parents who are unhappy together but are unable to
> separate for financial reasons is not good for children
There is a growing mountain of evidence to the contrary. Children end
up doing better in virtually every measurable way if the family stays
together, and also if they live with their fathers. The myth that
breaking up a family is to help children is another feminist hate lie to
support what the woman wants. It is NOT about what's good for the
children.
>>>Like for instance that although most fathers are decent enough to wish
>>>
> to
>
>>>support there children there are a few who aren't and that a law was
>>>
> needed
>
>>>to make those irresponsible fathers face up to their responsibilitie.
>>>
>>Misandrist stereotypes about fathers do not further your arguments.
>>
>
> What exactly is misandrist about saying "most fathers are decent enough to
> wish to support there children" ?
What is misandrist is your conclusion that the law ought to force men
into indentured servitude (a form of slavery) to pay money to a woman so
she can support children. Most men want to support their children by
providing a home, food, clothing, etc. Most women do not want that
responsibility. Women use children as an excuse to make men into
indentured servants and force men to pay them. Your misandrist lies are
becoming well known.
>>Fathers are as likely as mothers to wish to support their children.
>>
>
> Which is what I just said.
> It's only the few whose priority is not their children's welfare who refuse
> to pay financial support.
Lying about children's welfare only shows your misandrist feminism. If
the priority were for the children they would be brought to their father
for his love and support.
Stealing the man's money or putting him in prison, or binding him into
indentured servitude is not about the children's welfare. Its about
women stealing men's money. Its blatant misandry.
>>Fathers are often emotionally devastated under the current system that
>>takes children from their fathers. Sexist stereotypes about fathers are
>>just more hate speech.
>>
>
> Did you actually read what I said?
> It was "most fathers are decent enough to wish to support there children"
More hate speech does not change your hate speech. Stealing a man's
money to support a woman is not about helping children. Bring the
children to their father as women have done for millions of years. Its
a family system that has survived millions of years.
> Fathers normally continue to see their children after a marriage breaks down
> unless a court can be persuaded that this is not in the children's best
> interests (ie if the father is violent or mentally unstable), so the current
> system does not take children from their fathers.
Your lies notwithstanding, taking children from their fathers home is
exactly taking the children from their fathers. It HARMS the child. Its
NOT about helping the child. There are many studies that show that
children who have been taken from their fathers home do less well in
school, in relationships, in future marriage, and in every measurable
way. The current laws requiring "absentee child support" help to
destroy families and HARM children. They are a failed feminist
experiment and need to be stopped. Every day that goes by more children
re hurt.
>>>And in the 19th Century women didn't even have the vote, so it couldn't
>>>exactly be a feminist law, could it?
>>>
>>Don't kid yourself. Feminists in the 19th century were a major force
>>behind abolition of slavery, laws against prostitution, and many other
>>things. Prohibition of alcohol was not accomplished because women had a
>>vote, but because women's groups like the WCTU demanded it.
>>
> So the abolition of slavery is a feminist plot too?
Feminists helped with others to end slavery, except for the indentured
servitude of men which feminists still support.
>>>>Since then it has served to DESTROY millions of families,
>>>>
>>>How does child support destroy families?
>>>
>>The goal and purpose of the present system is to facilitate women to
>>leave their husband and take the children.
>>
>
> Only if the marriage has broken down.
The goal is to allow and support women who break down the marriage. It
provides financial incentive to break up families and hurt children.
>>It provides economic
>>incentive to destroy families.
>>
>
> How is a drop in income for women after divorce an economic incentive for
> women to destroy families?
Lying about drop in income, a common but thoroughly debunked feminist
propaganda lie, does not help your argument. Five years after divorce
most women have better financial position and still the man is forced to
give a big portion of his money to her.
> It might possibly, if we use your argument, be an
> economic incentive for men as, on average, they end up financially better
> off after a divorce.
> But on the whole people don't get married for the money, nor do they divorce
> for the money.
Nonsense. Financial incentives are a big part of marriage decisions and
always have been. You really don't understand marriage and divorce very
well do you.
> Caring for children is a lot of hard work, with evening and night shifts as
> standard, and the amounts of child support which are paid to primary carers
> do not represent an excessive (or even reasonable) wage for the job, so it
> seems likely that most people care for their children because they love
> them, not because it pays better than having any other job.
Parents need to care for their children because they are RESPONSIBLE for
the children. Women who don't want to be RESPONSIBLE for children ought
not to have children. Women have had CHOICE about having children since
before today's generation of mothers were born.
Don't go blaming somebody else if you or other women won't be
RESPONSIBLE for your choices and actions. Men are responsible. Women
need to take responsibility and stop blaming men.
>>>Child support doesn't hurt children. It provides financial support for
>>>
> them.
>
>>Taking children from their father hurts children.
>>
>
> Child support doesn't take children from their fathers.
> Custody is decided separately from child support.
Taking children from their fathers reduces their success in school,
crime avoidance, relationships, future families, and just about every
measurable way. Child support provides financial incentives to hurt
children and destroy families. Its a crime against families and a failed
feminist experiment.
>>A growing mountain of
>>evidence shows that children do worse in every measurable part of life
>>if they do not live with their father.
>>
>
> There's evidence that the lack of a consistent male role model is a problem,
> but given that most children whose parents are divorced continue to see
> their fathers regularly they don't lack a consistent male role model.
Cowshit! A "male role model" is NOT a father. The evidence shows that
a FATHER's love and guidance is the MOST IMPORTANT factor in raising a
child to become a successful adult. Claiming that a substitute "male
role model" is equivalent to a father is just another feminist hate LIE
about men.
> Poverty also has adverse effects on children - one way to solve this would
> be to make the minimum child support payments higher.
> Many fathers already voluntarily make payments higher than the minimum
> level.
Most fathers try to do everything they can to help their children, even
when evil women have destroyed their families and taken the children
from their fathers. It is no substitute for living in the fathers'
homes, but with the evil prejudice of law and court stacked so heavily
against men its all that most fathers can do. That in no way makes the
failed feminist experiment in so called "child support" into acceptable.
You can't change wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively.
>
>
>>>>ruin the lives of uncounted men.
>>>>
>>>How does having to pay to support your own children ruin your life?
>>>
>>Indentured servitude, a form of slavery, combined with being deprived of
>>your children is a ruined life. That is the universal result of current
>>failed feminist law.
>>
>
> You think that having to support your own children is slavery? Don't you
> feel that they have a right to expect anything from you?
Indentured servitude is NOT supporting a child and it IS a form of
slavery. Your misandrist lies about men do not help children.
> And men only get deprived of their children if a court can be convinced that
> they are unsuitable to have contact with them for a serious reason such as
> being a danger to them.
Most children are deprived of their fathers after a divorce, a harmful
mistreatment of children.
And now that you mention it the most at risk children in abuse
statistics are those who live with their divorced mother. Mother is
statistically far more of a danger to the child than the father. Having
a father in the home is statistically the most protective situation for
a child. Destroying homes and taking children from their fathers puts
millions of children at higher risk of violence including murder.
>>>Government statistics actually.
>>>
>>LIES actually. Women do better economically and emotionally than men
>>after divorce. Repeating LIES does not further your arguments. LIES
>>only serve to show your misandrist prejudice.
>>
>
> On average women tend to do better emotionally after divorce, but that seems
> to be because more divorces are caused by men behaving badly within the
> marriage.
More lies do not make your case. Most divorces are caused by women
behaving badly before and after the divorce.
> If one partner suffers as a result of the behaviour of the other within the
> marriage then it is likely that a divorce will improve their emotional
> wellbeing.
The parent who is deprived of his children after a divorce is likely to
be emotionally devastated, usually the father in today's laws.
The children almost always suffer when a woman breaks up her marriage
for whatever reason. One common one is "I just don't feel like a wife
any more." Another is "To find myself." A third is because she is
taking up with her lover.
>>>That is an option - shared custody does exist. But it does tend to mean
>>>
> that
>
>>>both parents have to work part time, which can be tricky to arrange.
>>>
>>More cowshit about "shared custody" does not improve the child's life,
>>nor bring the child to his/her father for support. The current system
>>is a FAILURE for children and men. In the long run it hurts millions of
>>girls and thereby hurts the next generation of women too.
>>
>
> A lot of today's women have divorced parents, and it doesn't seem to be
> causing them any problems.
LOLOLOL!!!!!
>>Paid "absentee child support" is really a euphemism for enslaving men to
>>pay women. It hurts millions and millions of children.
>>
>
> Child support hardly represents a fair minimum wage if you consider taking
> care of children as a job.
> Absentee fathers contribute less money to their children than fathers who
> live with the children.
The so-called child support is in addition to her other income and that
of her new man. It is added to her financial situation and subtracted
from the father's financial situation. None of your arguments justifies
stealing the man's money and putting him into indentured servitude to
support a former wife.
Fathers who's children live with them are much better off.
>>When women start taking responsibility for their own choices and
>>decisions instead of blaming the nearest available man they will be on
>>the road to being equal.
>>
>
> What's that got to do with child support?
When women start taking RESPONSIBILITY for their decisions and their
CHOICE to have children they will be on the road to being equal. Until
then, all the whining and blaming the next available man only continues
to demonstrate women's lack of equality. Men take responsibility, women
blame.
>>>Well, men are 50% responsible for the creation of children, why
>>Most fathers would love to support their children, and are prevented fro
>> doing so by feminist hate laws intended to enslave men and destroy
>>families. That is their intended purpose, and that is their universal
>>result.
>>
>
> Most fathers do support their children, and do not regard themselves as
> being "enslaved" as a result.
Most fathers object strongly to the completely unfair mistreatment, but
can't do anything about it. Slavery of any kind is ought to be abhorrent.
Bob
Bob
Nicky wrote:
Its always a debunked feminsit lie. There are so many.
Bob
Bob
Nicky wrote:
I'm sure you know many.
Bob
Phil#3
After reading your posts, it has become glaringly obvious that you know
absolutely nothing about divorce, custody and even less about child $upport.
It is probably safe to assume you to be and very young and completely
unscarred by divorce with children.
Stick around and find out the truth about what is being broadcast on this
subject but first, unlearn all the feminist dogma and slogans you've heard
over the years.
"Nicky" <ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:akneli$pme$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > Or by providing money to support the child in his absence.
> > Nope. Children were brought to the father for support if his support
> > was wanted. The concept of sending money is really recent. Forcing men
> > to send money is radical in the last century.
>
> How do you think the children of soldiers, sailors, international
> travellers, etc, etc used to be supported then?
>
> > > Does the possibility that there was a reason for the current system of
> child
> > > support being created occur to you?
> > I already mentioned that. It was an idea of feminists published in the
> > middle of the 19th century,
> > for women to be able to leave their
> > husbands, take his children, and still be supported.
>
> If a marriage breaks down there should be the opportunity for the couple
to
> separate without the wife and children starving as a result.
See, this is one example that feminists use a lot; stand behind the
children. Use them as a shield.
> Being brought up by parents who are unhappy together but are unable to
> separate for financial reasons is not good for children
>
Nor is being raised by a single parent, but IMO, a joyless marriage is
probably better than a divorce if the parents can be civil toward each
other.
> > > Like for instance that although most fathers are decent enough to wish
> to
> > > support there children there are a few who aren't and that a law was
> needed
> > > to make those irresponsible fathers face up to their responsibilitie.
> > Misandrist stereotypes about fathers do not further your arguments.
>
> What exactly is misandrist about saying "most fathers are decent enough to
> wish to support there children" ?
It's the stereotype that fathers make the best second choice as parent.
>
> > Fathers are as likely as mothers to wish to support their children.
>
> Which is what I just said.
> It's only the few whose priority is not their children's welfare who
refuse
> to pay financial support.
Better check on the percentage of mothers who refuse to pay financial
support before, during and after divorce.
I bet you also think that because only about 8-10% of fathers get custody,
it's because only that many *want* it.
>
> > Fathers are often emotionally devastated under the current system that
> > takes children from their fathers. Sexist stereotypes about fathers are
> > just more hate speech.
>
> Did you actually read what I said?
> It was "most fathers are decent enough to wish to support there children"
>
> Fathers normally continue to see their children after a marriage breaks
down
> unless a court can be persuaded that this is not in the children's best
> interests (ie if the father is violent or mentally unstable), so the
current
> system does not take children from their fathers.
You are wrong to a fault on this one. Father's lose custody simply because
mothers demand it, often even claiming abuse and the courts are bending over
for feminists because of the political power wielded by this most hateful of
groups.
I can "see" my neighbor's children; doesn't make me their father nor promote
a parent/child relationship.
>
> > > And in the 19th Century women didn't even have the vote, so it
couldn't
> > > exactly be a feminist law, could it?
> > Don't kid yourself. Feminists in the 19th century were a major force
> > behind abolition of slavery, laws against prostitution, and many other
> > things. Prohibition of alcohol was not accomplished because women had a
> > vote, but because women's groups like the WCTU demanded it.
>
> So the abolition of slavery is a feminist plot too?
>
> > >>Since then it has served to DESTROY millions of families,
> > > How does child support destroy families?
> > The goal and purpose of the present system is to facilitate women to
> > leave their husband and take the children.
>
> Only if the marriage has broken down.
Are you so sure that the incentives dangled by the government have nothing
to do with causing the marriage to break down?
If mothers were not all but guaranteed to be able to keep damn near
everything of the marriage including the children (which is usually why they
wind up with everything else; see above about standing behind the children)
and a large chunk of change, they'd be far less likely to end the marriage.
>
> > It provides economic
> > incentive to destroy families.
>
> How is a drop in income for women after divorce an economic incentive for
> women to destroy families? It might possibly, if we use your argument, be
an
> economic incentive for men as, on average, they end up financially better
> off after a divorce.
> But on the whole people don't get married for the money, nor do they
divorce
> for the money.
With "no-fault" how do you know why people divorce?
You're hanging onto the lie feminists have been spouting about the falsified
research done by Weitzman. She even admitted the research was in error but
that did nothing to disuade feminists from using the fasle information to
further their aims.
Of course, honesty is most definitely *not* one of feminism's strong points.
You really should try working with facts.
>
> Caring for children is a lot of hard work, with evening and night shifts
as
> standard, and the amounts of child support which are paid to primary
carers
> do not represent an excessive (or even reasonable) wage for the job, so it
> seems likely that most people care for their children because they love
> them, not because it pays better than having any other job.
>
Evening shifts are standard? On my planet, the majority of employees work
during the day.
Before you can claim C$ amounts are not excessive, you will need to know how
much children COST.
>
> > > Child support doesn't hurt children. It provides financial support for
> them.
> > Taking children from their father hurts children.
>
> Child support doesn't take children from their fathers.
> Custody is decided separately from child support.
>
The idea that C$ may drive the custody demand never entered your mind, did
it?
You claim that "most" fathers want to support their children but then seem
to think forcing them to do is a good idea?
Your logic astounds.
> > A growing mountain of
> > evidence shows that children do worse in every measurable part of life
> > if they do not live with their father.
>
> There's evidence that the lack of a consistent male role model is a
problem,
> but given that most children whose parents are divorced continue to see
> their fathers regularly they don't lack a consistent male role model.
> Poverty also has adverse effects on children - one way to solve this would
> be to make the minimum child support payments higher.
> Many fathers already voluntarily make payments higher than the minimum
> level.
What color is the sky on your plant?
>
> > >>ruin the lives of uncounted men.
> > > How does having to pay to support your own children ruin your life?
> > Indentured servitude, a form of slavery, combined with being deprived of
> > your children is a ruined life. That is the universal result of current
> > failed feminist law.
>
> You think that having to support your own children is slavery? Don't you
> feel that they have a right to expect anything from you?
>
Do the children have a right to expect the same from their custodial parent?
If so, why are they not also forced to supply support as NCPs are? Why is
there no accountability to insure the C$ is used *for* the children?
Your ideas are full of holes, false assumptions and feminist propaganda.
> And men only get deprived of their children if a court can be convinced
that
> they are unsuitable to have contact with them for a serious reason such as
> being a danger to them.
>
No proof necessary to remove a father from the family, only lies and
innunendo.
What you mean is, mother's don't lie.
> > > Government statistics actually.
> > LIES actually. Women do better economically and emotionally than men
> > after divorce. Repeating LIES does not further your arguments. LIES
> > only serve to show your misandrist prejudice.
>
> On average women tend to do better emotionally after divorce, but that
seems
> to be because more divorces are caused by men behaving badly within the
> marriage.
And you proof of this lie is ..... what, exactly?
You lie. That's for sure and certain.
> If one partner suffers as a result of the behaviour of the other within
the
> marriage then it is likely that a divorce will improve their emotional
> wellbeing.
>
> > > That is an option - shared custody does exist. But it does tend to
mean
> that
> > > both parents have to work part time, which can be tricky to arrange.
> > More cowshit about "shared custody" does not improve the child's life,
> > nor bring the child to his/her father for support. The current system
> > is a FAILURE for children and men. In the long run it hurts millions of
> > girls and thereby hurts the next generation of women too.
>
> A lot of today's women have divorced parents, and it doesn't seem to be
> causing them any problems.
>
You don't get out much, do you?
Sex does not appear to cause pregnancy since it sometimes does not result in
pregnancy and also becomes obvious so much later than the act.
> > > Child support is paid where one parent is primary carer. A primary
carer
> has
> > > less opportunity to earn money due to the time spent taking care of
the
> > > child, so the other parent is required to make a contribution towards
> the
> > > cost of the child's upbringing.
> > Paid "absentee child support" is really a euphemism for enslaving men to
> > pay women. It hurts millions and millions of children.
>
> Child support hardly represents a fair minimum wage if you consider taking
> care of children as a job.
> Absentee fathers contribute less money to their children than fathers who
> live with the children.
Who told you *THIS* lie that you seem so eager to believe?
Gullible (Spelled with a capital D-U-H).
>>When women start taking responsibility for their own choices and
> > decisions instead of blaming the nearest available man they will be on
> > the road to being equal.
>
> What's that got to do with child support?
>
I take it back, you're not only gullible, but not very smart either.
> > > Well, men are 50% responsible for the creation of children, why
> shouldn't
> > > they be responsible for supporting them?
> > > Most men care about their children's welfare and are quite happy to
> support
> > > them.
> > Women have had exclusive "choice" for longer than the lives of today's
> > mothers. Those who make the decisions are responsible. Enslaving men
> > because of a woman's choice is abhorrent. The laws of so called "child
> > support" destroy lives and harm millions and millions of children.
>
> In the first place a man is not required to support children unless there
> were reasonable grounds for suspecting that he is the father of the
> children. On the whole this means that he will have chosen to have sex
with
> the mother.
DNA tests proving he is NOT the father notwithstanding. Many men who have
been proven within 99% certainty they are not the bio parent are still
ordered to pay C$ to the child's mother. Explain that with you feminist
bullshit.
Sex is not part of the equation.
> So, if you really don't want to pay child support the first thing to
> consider is being careful who you choose to have sex with. Choosing to use
> condoms or to have a vasectomy can also reduce your risk of having to pay
> child support (although neither are 100% reliable).
> There are lots of choices men can make to avoid paying childsupport.
Name one. Even proving beyond a doubt that the man is not the father, he may
still be ordered to supply C$ for children not his.
There is no way to avoid it.
>
> And, yet again, child support does not harm children, it provides money to
> feed, clothe and house them.
>
Maybe. It depends on the mother's wishes.
It is just as likely to pay for part of mom's food, clothing and rent. But I
doubt you have a problem with mothers using children as a shield.
> > > Actually it works quite well.
> > > Most fathers don't object to the principle of supporting their own
> children.
> > Most fathers would love to support their children, and are prevented fro
> > doing so by feminist hate laws intended to enslave men and destroy
> > families. That is their intended purpose, and that is their universal
> > result.
>
> Most fathers do support their children, and do not regard themselves as
> being "enslaved" as a result.
>
Only because "most" fathers are not ordered to supply too much money to
someone who has a grudge against them.
--
Moral character should not be measured so much by how well we act, but more
from why we act well.
Phil #3
Nicky
> > If a marriage breaks down there should be the opportunity for the couple
to
> > separate without the wife and children starving as a result.
> If the wife leaves her home and husband its HER responsibility. It does
> not justify making the former husband into an indentured servant (a form
> of slavery) for the next 20 years to support her.
Fortunately most people in a civilised society disagree with you on that
one.
It is not reasonable to force people to stay in unhappy relationships. It is
not good for children to grow up in an environment where the adults around
them are unhappy or treat each other badly. Relationships fail for all sorts
of reasons and it is not reasonable that children should be deprived of
support because their parents' relationship has failed.
It is not slavery to require a parent to put a proportion of their income
into providing support for their own children.
> It also is not a "right" for her to take the children from THEIR home.
Whether children have to move from the family home depends whether a
suitable agreement can be reached about the separation - if, for example,
the parent who is not primary carer refuses to move out then the primary
carer may be forced to move out with the children.
And quite a lot of family homes seem to get sold after separations so that
the non-resident parent can get his share of the equity of the property.
> > Being brought up by parents who are unhappy together but are unable to
> > separate for financial reasons is not good for children
> There is a growing mountain of evidence to the contrary. Children end
> up doing better in virtually every measurable way if the family stays
> together, and also if they live with their fathers. The myth that
> breaking up a family is to help children is another feminist hate lie to
> support what the woman wants. It is NOT about what's good for the
> children.
A happy family with parents who get along well together is the ideal, but if
the relationship between the parents breaks down it damages the whole
family. A clean break is often the best solution for everyone.
> > What exactly is misandrist about saying "most fathers are decent enough
to
> > wish to support there children" ?
> What is misandrist is your conclusion that the law ought to force men
> into indentured servitude (a form of slavery) to pay money to a woman so
Providing financial support for your own children is not "indentured
servitude (a form of slavery)".
> she can support children. Most men want to support their children by
> providing a home, food, clothing, etc. Most women do not want that
> responsibility.
What makes you think that most women don't want the responsibility of
providing a home, food, clothing, etc for their children? Surely if that was
the case they either wouldn't have children or would be happy for the
fathers to have custody.
> Women use children as an excuse to make men into
> indentured servants and force men to pay them. Your misandrist lies are
> becoming well known.
Child support payments hardly represent a high rate of pay for the very
demanding job of caring for children.
If someone wished to earn money by caring for children then there's a
considerably better hourly rate available for babysitting, not to mention a
chance of being thanked for doing the job.
> > Which is what I just said.
> > It's only the few whose priority is not their children's welfare who
refuse
> > to pay financial support.
> Lying about children's welfare only shows your misandrist feminism. If
> the priority were for the children they would be brought to their father
> for his love and support.
Most fathers do continue to see their children after a relationship has
broken down. Providing financial support for children does not prevent
anyone from seeing their children.
> Stealing the man's money or putting him in prison, or binding him into
> indentured servitude is not about the children's welfare. Its about
> women stealing men's money. Its blatant misandry.
How do children "steal the man's money"? Surely they're entitled to it?
> >>The goal and purpose of the present system is to facilitate women to
> >>leave their husband and take the children.
> > Only if the marriage has broken down.
> The goal is to allow and support women who break down the marriage. It
> provides financial incentive to break up families and hurt children.
See previous posts on the lack of financial advantage to women as a result
of divorce.
> > It might possibly, if we use your argument, be an
> > economic incentive for men as, on average, they end up financially
better
> > off after a divorce.
> > But on the whole people don't get married for the money, nor do they
divorce
> > for the money.
> Nonsense. Financial incentives are a big part of marriage decisions and
> always have been. You really don't understand marriage and divorce very
> well do you.
What makes you think I don't understand marriage or divorce?
> > Caring for children is a lot of hard work, with evening and night shifts
as
> > standard, and the amounts of child support which are paid to primary
carers
> > do not represent an excessive (or even reasonable) wage for the job, so
it
> > seems likely that most people care for their children because they love
> > them, not because it pays better than having any other job.
> Parents need to care for their children because they are RESPONSIBLE for
> the children. Women who don't want to be RESPONSIBLE for children ought
> not to have children. Women have had CHOICE about having children since
> before today's generation of mothers were born.
On the whole parents do care for their children, feel responsible for them
etc.
> > Child support doesn't take children from their fathers.
> > Custody is decided separately from child support.
> Taking children from their fathers reduces their success in school,
> crime avoidance, relationships, future families, and just about every
> measurable way. Child support provides financial incentives to hurt
> children and destroy families. Its a crime against families and a failed
> feminist experiment.
Child support provides a financial safety net for children whose parents
have separated. It makes their situation better than it would otherwise have
been.
> > There's evidence that the lack of a consistent male role model is a
problem,
> > but given that most children whose parents are divorced continue to see
> > their fathers regularly they don't lack a consistent male role model.
> Cowshit! A "male role model" is NOT a father. The evidence shows that
> a FATHER's love and guidance is the MOST IMPORTANT factor in raising a
> child to become a successful adult. Claiming that a substitute "male
> role model" is equivalent to a father is just another feminist hate LIE
> about men.
Why do you think that saying that many men are capable of being good role
models for children is an indication of hating men?
> It is no substitute for living in the fathers' homes,
I'm concerned that you keep referring to "the fathers' homes" instead of
"the family home"
> > And men only get deprived of their children if a court can be convinced
that
> > they are unsuitable to have contact with them for a serious reason such
as
> > being a danger to them.
> Most children are deprived of their fathers after a divorce, a harmful
> mistreatment of children.
Where do you get that idea from? Most fathers continue to support their
children, have regular contact with them, etc, etc after divorce.
> > A lot of today's women have divorced parents, and it doesn't seem to be
> > causing them any problems.
> > Most fathers do support their children, and do not regard themselves as
> > being "enslaved" as a result.
> Most fathers object strongly to the completely unfair mistreatment, but
> can't do anything about it. Slavery of any kind is ought to be abhorrent.
Certainly slavery is abhorrent.
Child support isn't slavery.
Nicky
> to
> > separate without the wife and children starving as a result.
> See, this is one example that feminists use a lot; stand behind the
> children. Use them as a shield.
Couples separate for lots of reasons. If they don't have children then there
is no problem with finances as both are able to work to support themselves.
If they have children then someone has to care for the children, which means
that they often can't work full time, so their potential income is lower and
they have children to feed, house and clothe as well as themselves.
To compensate for this the other parent pays child support.
> > Being brought up by parents who are unhappy together but are unable to
> > separate for financial reasons is not good for children
> Nor is being raised by a single parent, but IMO, a joyless marriage is
> probably better than a divorce if the parents can be civil toward each
> other.
But you'd accept that sometimes divorce is necessary?
> > What exactly is misandrist about saying "most fathers are decent enough
to
> > wish to support there children" ?
> It's the stereotype that fathers make the best second choice as parent.
That's not what I said.
> You are wrong to a fault on this one. Father's lose custody simply because
> mothers demand it, often even claiming abuse and the courts are bending
over
> for feminists
So you think that Judges, who are almost all elderly white males, are
biassed against men?
> > Only if the marriage has broken down.
> Are you so sure that the incentives dangled by the government have nothing
> to do with causing the marriage to break down?
An average 28% drop in income doesn't seem like much of an incentive to
break up a marriage.
> > Caring for children is a lot of hard work, with evening and night shifts
> as
> > standard, and the amounts of child support which are paid to primary
> carers
> > do not represent an excessive (or even reasonable) wage for the job, so
it
> > seems likely that most people care for their children because they love
> > them, not because it pays better than having any other job.
> Evening shifts are standard? On my planet, the majority of employees work
> during the day.
Yes, but the majority of primary carers for children are busy caring for the
children during the day, in the evening and even in the middle of the night.
If someone was motivated by money they'd do a lot better to get a regular
job.
> You claim that "most" fathers want to support their children but then seem
> to think forcing them to do is a good idea?
> Your logic astounds.
Most people don't wish to steal and have no particular need of a law against
it. But the few who do steal are aware that they can be punished for their
actions.
Similarly most fathers do wish to support their children. The law exists to
make the minority who don't wish to support their children aware that they
can be punished for their actions.
> > You think that having to support your own children is slavery? Don't you
> > feel that they have a right to expect anything from you?
> Do the children have a right to expect the same from their custodial
parent?
> If so, why are they not also forced to supply support as NCPs are?
Someone has to be around to care for the children. It is not possible to
both work full time and care for children full time. Usually the custodial
parent will have a reduced earning potential due to the need to spend time
caring for the children.
Custodial parents tend to provide more physical support and non-custodial
parents tend to provide more financial support. Children need both these
things.
> Why is
> there no accountability to insure the C$ is used *for* the children?
Why wouldn't it be used for the children?
> > A lot of today's women have divorced parents, and it doesn't seem to be
> > causing them any problems.
> > Child support hardly represents a fair minimum wage if you consider
taking
> > care of children as a job.
> > Absentee fathers contribute less money to their children than fathers
who
> > live with the children.
> > There are lots of choices men can make to avoid paying childsupport.
> Name one.
Avoid having heterosexual sex. That way you will never have to pay child
support.
> > And, yet again, child support does not harm children, it provides money
to
> > feed, clothe and house them.
> Maybe. It depends on the mother's wishes.
> It is just as likely to pay for part of mom's food, clothing and rent. But
I
> doubt you have a problem with mothers using children as a shield.
So are you saying that the children of single mothers can be identified
because they are normally found naked and starving on the streets due to
child support money being spent on other things than their food, clothing
and accomodation?
Paul Fritz
> > > There is a guaranteed minimum income level provided for all families
> with
> > > children.
> > Children in intact families are NOT guaranteed any percentage of their
> > parents income.
>
> No, but in the UK households with children in are guaranteed a minimum
level
> of income by the Benefits system.
>
> > > You are correct that no law forces a man to support his children when
he
> > > lives in the same house with them - although there is the possibility
of
> > his
> > > being prosecuted for neglect or cruelty.
> > And no law requires CS to be spent on the children by CP mommy. Child
> > support is not the correct name......mommy support is.
>
> Given that child support payments are hardly very generous and caring for
> children is hard work money is unlikely to be the primary motive for
caring
> for children.
WRONG!
>
> > > With a current divorce rate of 50% that seems highly unlikely to be
> true.
> > > How does the state force parents to be absentee?
> > Free hint for the clueless.....with women wanting the majority of the
> > divorces,
>
> Well, since you need grounds for a divorce perhaps you could consider the
> possibility that women being the main petitioners might mean that in most
> cases men have given them grounds for divorce by behaving badly?
I guess you have a reading comprehension problem.
>
> > and fathers being forced out of their childrens' lives and
> > limited to a few days a month, tell another lie that the state is not
> > creating absentee fathers.
>
> Exact custody arrangements vary from case to case. I don't know of any
> fathers who see their children less than once a week, except for one who
> chose not to have contact at all after he was offered it.
>
> > (1) Wolfgang Hirczy, in an April 5, 1996, posting in the Family Law
list,
> > summarized the data as indicating that in two thirds of cases wives
dump
> > husbands. The main source he cites is a 1993 study by Braver, Whitely
and
> > Ng, which asked 378 families "Which one of you was the first to want
out
> of
> > the marriage, you or your ex?"
>
> Well, the person who wished to end the marriages was not necesarily the
> person who had caused the problems which led to the marriage ending. You
> need grounds for a divorce, so if the majority of divorce petitions are
made
> by women it tends to imply that the majority of divorces are made on the
> grounds of men's behaviour in the marriage.
Reading comprehension problem continued
>
> > various studies of divorcing partners "have showed that the woman is
more
> > often dissatisfied with the marriage than the man."
>
> So, if you think it's important to keep families together perhaps it
would
> be a good idea to find out why women are dissatisfied by marriage and
what
> their husbands could do to help improve the situation.
and continued
>
> > > I'd tend to support the idea that whoever was primary carer for the
> child
> > > before a separation should remain as the primary carer because that
> would
> > be
> > > less disruptive for the child, but there are alternative systems
which
> > also
> > > work well.
> > > As in all these things, the welfare of the child should be the most
> > > important consideration.
> > Bull and bull...."primary caretaker" is a not so clever redefinition of
> the
> > "tender years" doctrine, with the assignment of "primary caretaking"
roles
> > limited to what mommy traditionally does.....it is a load of bulls**t
>
> There are some families where the father is primary carer.
> And I'm surprised that you don't think the child's welfare should be
> important.
>
and continued
> > > Social problems have always existed, and despite current right-wing
> > > propaganda they are not exclusively caused by single parents.
> > It has nothing to do with "right wing" propaganda, and everything to do
> > with wrong headed guvmint social engineering.......the single greatest
> > possible harm to a child is growing up in a single mother household.
>
> No, it's mostly poverty and growing up in a deprived area which cause
harm
> to children and cause social problems.
Ahem.......you are wrong again, since the problem associated with mother
only headed households croses all economic and social levels.
> Lack of a male role model can cause behavioural problems, but the male
role
> model doesn't have to be permanently resident with the child, and it
doesn't
> have to be the child's father - grandfathers, uncles, stepfathers etc,
etc
> can do the job just as well.
And again you are wrong, countless studies have shown it.
It is time you dump the feminitwit ideology and start learnign reality.
>
>
Paul Fritz
"Phil#3" <fa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aknpu6$eag$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> Nicky,
> After reading your posts, it has become glaringly obvious that you know
> absolutely nothing about divorce, custody and even less about child
$upport.
> It is probably safe to assume you to be and very young and completely
> unscarred by divorce with children.
> Stick around and find out the truth about what is being broadcast on this
> subject but first, unlearn all the feminist dogma and slogans you've
heard
> over the years.
I agree 100%
RogerFGay
>
> Custody is a complex issue.
> I'd tend to support the idea that whoever was primary carer for the child
> before a separation should remain as the primary carer because that would be
> less disruptive for the child, but there are alternative systems which also
> work well.
> As in all these things, the welfare of the child should be the most
> important consideration.
>
Generally the research says (very clearly) that the best parent for
the children is both parents. This isn't something that changes due to
divorce.
I don't think it is sane for any human being to support choices about
parental custody being made by third parties.
Bob
Nicky wrote:
> If they have children then someone has to care for the children, which means
> that they often can't work full time, so their potential income is lower and
> they have children to feed, house and clothe as well as themselves.
> To compensate for this the other parent pays child support.
Blaming men for the woman not taking responsibility again?
When women begin taking responsibly for their own choices and actions
they will start being seen as equal. A woman's choices and
responsibility is NOT a justification to steal a man's money.
>>Nor is being raised by a single parent, but IMO, a joyless marriage is
>>probably better than a divorce if the parents can be civil toward each
>>other.
>>
>
> But you'd accept that sometimes divorce is necessary?
Very seldom. The one who breaks up the marriage and leaves has no right
to take the kids from their home. The kids relationship to their father
is not being broken up.
>>It's the stereotype that fathers make the best second choice as parent.
>>
>
> That's not what I said.
That's what you said exactly. Sorry to see through your misandrist
propaganda speech.
> So you think that Judges, who are almost all elderly white males, are
> biassed against men?
First, many judges are women. Second, women judges tend to be even more
sexist than men judges. Third, active feminist political campaigns have
elected judges who are very biased. Fourth, the law is often very
misandrist even if the judges try to be fair.
>
> An average 28% drop in income doesn't seem like much of an incentive to
> break up a marriage.
Blaming men for women's lack of supporting themselves is irrelevant. It
does not justify a woman's claim to a man's money or property.
> Yes, but the majority of primary carers for children are busy caring for the
> children during the day, in the evening and even in the middle of the night.
> If someone was motivated by money they'd do a lot better to get a regular
> job.
Shirking responsibility is flawed argument. Fathers make no such
excuses. Fathers take responsibility when they have the opportunity.
> Most people don't wish to steal and have no particular need of a law against
> it.
False. Most divorced women try to steal their ex's money. They justify
it to themselves as you have done.
> But the few who do steal are aware that they can be punished for their
> actions.
Far more money is stolen with a fountain pen than with a gun. Stealing
the father's money is done with a pen. Its still just as immoral. If
women took responsibility instead of blaming men we wouldn't have this
problem.
> Similarly most fathers do wish to support their children. The law exists to
> make the minority who don't wish to support their children aware that they
> can be punished for their actions.
Men are punished for failing to pay the money that women demand.
Debtor's prisons were outlawed when the US was formed, and have been
abhorrent to Americans for two centuries. The current feminist misandry
has brought back debtor's prisons for men who fail at or refuse the
enslavement. Its immoral hate laws against men. And it HURTS millions
of children.
> Someone has to be around to care for the children. It is not possible to
> both work full time and care for children full time. Usually the custodial
> parent will have a reduced earning potential due to the need to spend time
> caring for the children.
Fathers who support children do not blame women. Fathers take
responsibility.
> Custodial parents tend to provide more physical support and non-custodial
> parents tend to provide more financial support. Children need both these
> things.
More feminist misandry propaganda. Why are we not surprised.
>>Why is
>>there no accountability to insure the C$ is used *for* the children?
>>
>
> Why wouldn't it be used for the children?
Nobody says it has to be used for the children. Much of the money that
mothers take from fathers is used for the mother's expenses. That's the
way it is.
A better question is why isn't the mother required to spend the money on
the children?
> Avoid having heterosexual sex. That way you will never have to pay child
> support.
Tell that to your "pro choice" fembots. When they agree that avoiding
sex is equal to "pro choice" you can come back and tell us all about it.
Until then its just more hate.
Bob
Nicky
more
> > > often dissatisfied with the marriage than the man."
> > So, if you think it's important to keep families together perhaps it
would
> > be a good idea to find out why women are dissatisfied by marriage and
what
> > their husbands could do to help improve the situation.
> and continued
What's wrong with suggesting that trying to save a marriage in the first
place is more constructive than complaining about the arrangements made
after it is broken?
Nicky
means
> > that they often can't work full time, so their potential income is lower
and
> > they have children to feed, house and clothe as well as themselves.
> > To compensate for this the other parent pays child support.
> Blaming men for the woman not taking responsibility again?
No, I'm pointing out that it's not possible to work full time and also to
care for children full time.
> > But you'd accept that sometimes divorce is necessary?
> Very seldom. The one who breaks up the marriage and leaves has no right
> to take the kids from their home.
Surely that depends on why the marriage is broken and who has been primary
carer for the children prior to the marriage break-up
> The kids relationship to their father
> is not being broken up.
Most fathers continue to see their children after a divorce so their
relationship is not broken up.
> > So you think that Judges, who are almost all elderly white males, are
> > biassed against men?
> First, many judges are women. Second, women judges tend to be even more
> sexist than men judges.
There are some female judges, but the majority of them are men.
> Third, active feminist political campaigns have
> elected judges who are very biased.
> Fourth, the law is often very
> misandrist even if the judges try to be fair.
That'll be a law created by politicians who are also mostly male.
> Blaming men for women's lack of supporting themselves is irrelevant. It
> does not justify a woman's claim to a man's money or property.
Child support is the child's claim to a man's money or property.
Nicky
> the children is both parents. This isn't something that changes due to
> divorce.
Most children do still have both parents after a divorce.
John Jones
> > > If they have children then someone has to care for the
children, which
> means
> > > that they often can't work full time, so their potential
income is lower
> and
> > > they have children to feed, house and clothe as well as
themselves.
> > > To compensate for this the other parent pays child support.
> > Blaming men for the woman not taking responsibility again?
>
> No, I'm pointing out that it's not possible to work full time
and also to
> care for children full time.
Why not? Full time doesn't mean around-the-clock.
>
> > > But you'd accept that sometimes divorce is necessary?
> > Very seldom. The one who breaks up the marriage and leaves
has no right
> > to take the kids from their home.
>
> Surely that depends on why the marriage is broken and who has
been primary
> carer for the children prior to the marriage break-up
According to Sanford Braver, women seek and initiate divorce ~70%
of the time, and the reson most given amounted to doredom with
the marriage.
[...]
>
> > > So you think that Judges, who are almost all elderly white
males, are
> > > biassed against men?
> > First, many judges are women. Second, women judges tend to
be even more
> > sexist than men judges.
>
> There are some female judges, but the majority of them are men.
So? Anti-male bias by men is a time-honored tradition known as
chivalry.
>
> > Third, active feminist political campaigns have
> > elected judges who are very biased.
> > Fourth, the law is often very
> > misandrist even if the judges try to be fair.
>
> That'll be a law created by politicians who are also mostly
male.
And elected by voters who are mostly female.
>
> > Blaming men for women's lack of supporting themselves is
irrelevant. It
> > does not justify a woman's claim to a man's money or
property.
>
> Child support is the child's claim to a man's money or
property.
But there's no requirement that it be spent on the child.
>
>
Bob
Nicky wrote:
Fiction! Most children are forcibly separated from their fathers and
only see him on occasional "visits." Often mothers even prevent letters
and visits. It HURTS the children. It is child abuse.
Bob
John Jones
not equally.
>
>
Bob
RogerFGay wrote:
Good answer. The children are not being divorced from their father.
The divorcing mother has no right to take them away from him. It hurts
the children.
Bob
Sunny
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No, I'm pointing out that it's not possible to work full time and also to
>care for children full time.
I have several sisters who did it. While married, no less.
Bob
Nicky wrote:
I think that would be a good idea. Now if you could convince the
majority of women who file for divorce to "find myself."
Bob
Barry Pearson
news:4b6433c3.02082...@posting.google.com...
> "Tiberius" <sp...@mania-n.info> wrote in message
news:<ak2bs4$1e3m6d$2...@ID-130298.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Roger,
> >
> > (I hope you are listening), you have some very good points and I
> > support your basic aims. But I think you have overdone the
> > "conspiracy attack on the Western world" to the point where it is
> > harming your cause. The problems we have with Child Support in
> > the UK and the USA are a result of laziness and sloppy thinking
> > on the part of our own politicians and the mendacity of indigenous
> > lobby groups, not a concerted attack by external forces.
As far as the UK is concerned - precisely!
The UK's CSA was an anti-socialist measure intoduced by one of the most
anti-socialist governments the UK has had.
The fact that it was a central agency was in fact because it was an agent of the
Treasury, intended to reduce social security expenditure by ensuring that
parents between continued to support the child after separation, instead of
leaving it to "the state".
The legislation was not well thought through, and became an administrative
disaster. One problem is that it didn't learn lessons from other countries, and
went its own way.
> > We need to raise the intellectual level of the debate. The trouble
> > is that issuing a call to arms against an enemy (real or not)
> > always tends to lower the level of the debate.
Yes. A problem may be that if a person hates something, they may only be able to
attack it by linking it to another hate-object.
Many opponents of the CSA still believe that it is entirely an agent of the
Treasury, without benefit to women and children. In most cases, the are now
wrong. Under the current government, which has some redistributive tendencies,
as general beneits have risen, overgare child support awards look set to fall a
little. My belief is that anti-socialist nations will tend to set higher awards
than socialist nations, because the latter are likely to redistribute more into
basic state support and hence not need such high child support. I am still
looking for more evidence for this trend.
[snip]
> I guess I'm not in the mood to respond to what you've said
> right now. I've studied the situation carefully, and am quite
> certain about what I'm saying. Too many people guess at
> what's going on, or don't bother to investigate thuroughly,
> and I'm a little tired of getting political advise in response
> to factual information. I'm not a politician or a political
> group. I research and report and I am absolutely certain in
> my knowledge of what's going on.
Where the UK is concerned, you are wrong - it is as simple as that! You appear
to be imposing your own ideology in contradiction of plenty of facts that are
well known in the UK.
If you REALLY want to learn about the UK system, there are plenty of books and
other sources identified on my web site. When you have read them, you will be
better qualified to comment on the UK system. I have indicated the ones I
particularly recommend as a result of my own reading.
Child Support Agenda for the 21st Century
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/what_next.htm
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/faq/
Nicky
> > place is more constructive than complaining about the arrangements made
> > after it is broken?
> I think that would be a good idea. Now if you could convince the
> majority of women who file for divorce to "find myself."
A good place to start might be to try to find out why they feel that
marriage has caused them to lose themselves.
Bob
Sunny wrote:
So do most fathers who are lucky enough to get custody of their children.
Bob
Sunny
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Child support is the child's claim to a man's money or property.
So why is the check made out to someone else?
Sunny
So when Dad is allowed to see the kids one weeknight a week and every
other weekend, if the mother allows it, that's still being a parent?
Bob
Barry Pearson wrote:
> The fact that it was a central agency was in fact because it was an agent of the
> Treasury, intended to reduce social security expenditure by ensuring that
> parents between continued to support the child after separation, instead of
> leaving it to "the state".
Forcing one parent into slavery to support the other parent is the wrong
thing to do no matter how effective the government is at doing it.
> Many opponents of the CSA still believe that it is entirely an agent of the
> Treasury, without benefit to women and children.
And men obviously don't even rise to the level of consciousness in your
thinking.
Hurting men to benefit women and children is the WRONG thing to do. In
the long run it also hurts the children, and since half the children are
girls it also eventually hurts women. However it also is WRONG because
it hurts men, and men matter too.
> little. My belief is that anti-socialist nations will tend to set higher awards
> than socialist nations, because the latter are likely to redistribute more into
> basic state support and hence not need such high child support. I am still
> looking for more evidence for this trend.
When they start considering men and the child's rights to their fathers
they will begin doing something right. Until then its an argument about
how to do wrong more efficiently.
Bob
Bob
Nicky wrote:
There is a good new book out called Spreading Misandry. It would be a
good place for you to start looking for an answer to that question.
Bob
Bob
Sunny wrote:
No that's not really being a parent. The kids have been stolen from
their father, just as the feminists of the 19th century set as their
goal. But real life is worse than that.
The economics for dads after paying the so-called child support to
provide the ex wife with her large home is that very often he can't
afford to pay for a second home large enough for the kids to come visit.
Few fathers can actually afford to pay for two large homes these days.
So even if he is "granted" (as if he ought to beg for them) visitation
of his children he very frequently has no place for them to visit. So
they end up going to the zoo or McD on saturday afternoon every month or
so if they are lucky. Have you ever noticed how many fathers bring
their kids to McDs on Saturday?
Bob
Sunny
Good point, Bob.
I have one friend who has his 4 teenage sons living with him, works
full time, AND has to continue to pay 25% of his income to his
ex-wife, who threatens to take the kids back if he doesn't.
And here's Nicky, claiming that there is no such thing as taking care
of children and working full time. Not possible. Can't be done.
>
>Bob
Nicky
> other weekend, if the mother allows it, that's still being a parent?
Yes, he's still being a parent.
Sunny
Indeed.
I know a man -- I won't mention any names, but I am married to him --
who was living in the largest apartment he could afford after paying
child support and alimony, but it was still a very small place. His
ex-wife complained that it wasn't big enough, that "her" daughters had
to share a bed, and that it wasn't situated in a very nice
neighborhood, so she reduced the number of hours she would allow him
to see the girls. She then expected him to pay more child support to
compensate the extra time she had the girls with her.
Sunny
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A good place to start might be to try to find out why they feel that
>marriage has caused them to lose themselves.
Because they are immature, egocentric and selfish?
Sunny
But only a 10% parent.
Bob
Nicky wrote:
>
> Child support is the child's claim to a man's money or property.
Another old common feminist lie.
The child is not represented by adequate (or any) counsel, is not
represented in family or divorce court, and is not allowed to make a
claim. Since the child makes no claim it can not be the child's claim.
Neither is the money paid to the child, or required to benefit the child.
The so-called "child support" is the woman's claim using the fiction of
the child as a weapon to obtain the man's money. Her claim abrogates
her co-equal responsibility to support her child and blames the father.
That feminist fiction about the child's welfare is an old misandry that
only serves to demonstrate your lack of willingness to accept equal
responsibility or fairness. We have seen it too many times to believe
it any more.
Bob
Bob
Sunny wrote:
Yes, as the old saying goes "Can't never did anything." Its more
feminist propaganda used to steal men's money.
Mothers have co-equal 100% responsibility to support the children that
they chose to bear. Blaming men and abrogating their responsibility
does not demonstrate that women are or want to be equal to men.
Bob
Bob
Nicky wrote:
One way to find out if things are really equal is to have one make up
the proposed settlement and the other choose which half he or she gets.
If women really believed that an occasional visit is really being a
parent, then that ought to be an acceptable result for them.
Until that happens its just more misandrist cowshit.
Bob
Bob
Sunny wrote:
Yep, been there, done that, got the T-shirt. The woman is living in a
nice expensive house that HE is paying for and blaming him because he
can't afford a second equally nice house for the kids to "visit" once a
month. Its a very common story.
Bob
John Jones
"Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D6FA681...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Nicky wrote:
>
> >>So when Dad is allowed to see the kids one weeknight a week and every
> >>other weekend, if the mother allows it, that's still being a parent?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, he's still being a parent.
>
>
> One way to find out if things are really equal is to have one make up
> the proposed settlement and the other choose which half he or she gets.
> If women really believed that an occasional visit is really being a
> parent, then that ought to be an acceptable result for them.
Good point.
Sunny
<Enuf...@nothanks.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3D6FA681...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> Nicky wrote:
>>
>> >>So when Dad is allowed to see the kids one weeknight a week and every
>> >>other weekend, if the mother allows it, that's still being a parent?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, he's still being a parent.
So is my Uncle George, then, because that's about how often I see him.
>> One way to find out if things are really equal is to have one make up
>> the proposed settlement and the other choose which half he or she gets.
>> If women really believed that an occasional visit is really being a
>> parent, then that ought to be an acceptable result for them.
>
>Good point.
Let's see...... "Okay, one of us gets the kids for 3 hours on one
night a week, and for 12 hours every other weekend, and also has to
pay the other parent 25% of his/her income. The other parent has the
kids with them for the remainder of the time, and can spend the money
any way they want."
Eany, meany, miney, mo.....
The ex-wives would say this is unfair! They'll say they should get
the kids the majority of the time and be paid for it, too, because...
because, well... they have uteruses!
>> Until that happens its just more misandrist cowshit.
100% agreed.
Bob
Sunny wrote:
Yep, if the settlement is fair, they ought to be willing to trade sides.
If they won't trade, then its not fair.
Bob
Paul Fritz
> > So when Dad is allowed to see the kids one weeknight a week and every
> > other weekend, if the mother allows it, that's still being a parent?
>
> Yes, he's still being a parent.
>
>
Are you that ignorant.......that is not a parent, it is a visitor.
Sunny
If Nicky has children, I propose that they be taken away from her. Let
her see them briefly once in a while, and tell her she is still just
as much a parent as she was before.
Nicky
> I have one friend who has his 4 teenage sons living with him, works
> full time, AND has to continue to pay 25% of his income to his
> ex-wife, who threatens to take the kids back if he doesn't.
Presumably these people also pay childminders or babysitters to care for the
children while they are at work.
Nicky
> >> > other weekend, if the mother allows it, that's still being a parent?
> >> Yes, he's still being a parent.
> >Are you that ignorant.......that is not a parent, it is a visitor.
So do you also believe that anyone who works away from home (soldiers,
sailors, commercial travellers, etc) is not a parent?
John Jones
Do you also believe that soldiers, sailors, commercial travelers
are equivalent to fathers who have been forced out of their
children's lives?
John Jones
What is your point? Do you think women don't do this or
something?
Oh. I get it. If men hire babysitters, it's because they're not
good parents. If women hire babysitters, it's because men
aren't paying enough child support.
Isn't that about right?
Bob
John Jones wrote:
In some real sense that is true. Men are often forced out of their
homes and away from their families for various reasons, not the least of
which is to earn a living for the woman and their children. Although
soldiers have been conscripted for millennia, the industrial revolution
has been an increasingly disruptive force in family life for men. Being
forced to leave home to work at some factory or distant job is really
unnatural, a sacrifice of men in a way. For most of human history we
lived in villages, men and women together with our children. In recent
millennia we had a few larger towns and cities, but even there most men
were shopkeepers or craftsmen, having a sales area out front, a shop in
back, and living quarters above or along side. The kids were around the
shop all the time, learning about life at their father's side.
In many ways industrial and office work away from home has disrupted
men's contact with our families and deprived our children of much of
their father's teaching.
Its not equal to being totally deprived of family and turned into an
occasional visitor though. I sometimes wonder how much of the modern
misandrist culture was created by the lack of fathers who were off at
work somewhere. As Farrell describes its the catch 22 of fathering. A
father who works to earn a living for his family is taken away from the
family to do the work, and is thus deprived of the love and contact with
his family.
Bob
Phil#3
> > > If a marriage breaks down there should be the opportunity for the
couple
> > to
> > > separate without the wife and children starving as a result.
> > See, this is one example that feminists use a lot; stand behind the
> > children. Use them as a shield.
>
> Couples separate for lots of reasons. If they don't have children then
there
> is no problem with finances as both are able to work to support
themselves.
>
> If they have children then someone has to care for the children, which
means
> that they often can't work full time, so their potential income is lower
and
> they have children to feed, house and clothe as well as themselves.
> To compensate for this the other parent pays child support.
>
Why can't they work full time? Many intact marriages have two full-time
earners.
You're just making excuses for women not to earn their own way and leech
from the father.
> > > Being brought up by parents who are unhappy together but are unable to
> > > separate for financial reasons is not good for children
> > Nor is being raised by a single parent, but IMO, a joyless marriage is
> > probably better than a divorce if the parents can be civil toward each
> > other.
>
> But you'd accept that sometimes divorce is necessary?
>
Nowhere as often as it happens, but yes, rarely.
> > > What exactly is misandrist about saying "most fathers are decent
enough
> to
> > > wish to support there children" ?
> > It's the stereotype that fathers make the best second choice as parent.
>
> That's not what I said.
>
It sure is the way I read it.
All through your post your intents solidly appears to be that mothers make
the best parents, which leaves men as second best, if at all.
> > You are wrong to a fault on this one. Father's lose custody simply
because
> > mothers demand it, often even claiming abuse and the courts are bending
> over
> > for feminists
>
> So you think that Judges, who are almost all elderly white males, are
> biassed against men?
>
Well, yes. And many judges are women (growing in numbers yearly). Both have
extreme political pressure to make the "right" choices. Failure to do so
increases the ire and actions from NOW and the like.
Go to their web page and look at the political action' recommendations.
> > > Only if the marriage has broken down.
> > Are you so sure that the incentives dangled by the government have
nothing
> > to do with causing the marriage to break down?
>
> An average 28% drop in income doesn't seem like much of an incentive to
> break up a marriage.
>
Please post your data for this insipid lie. Where did you hear this?
>
> > > Caring for children is a lot of hard work, with evening and night
shifts
> > as
> > > standard, and the amounts of child support which are paid to primary
> > carers
> > > do not represent an excessive (or even reasonable) wage for the job,
so
> it
> > > seems likely that most people care for their children because they
love
> > > them, not because it pays better than having any other job.
> > Evening shifts are standard? On my planet, the majority of employees
work
> > during the day.
>
> Yes, but the majority of primary carers for children are busy caring for
the
> children during the day, in the evening and even in the middle of the
night.
> If someone was motivated by money they'd do a lot better to get a regular
> job.
>
Not exactly. Free money is just that. You give women more credit than they
deserve. By and large, most women care for their children but I'll wager
that, as a rule, none care more for their children and their future than the
father.
IMO, many women use the unfair and biased court decisions as a hammer to
keep the father in line and punish for perceived wrongs.
> > You claim that "most" fathers want to support their children but then
seem
> > to think forcing them to do is a good idea?
> > Your logic astounds.
>
> Most people don't wish to steal and have no particular need of a law
against
> it. But the few who do steal are aware that they can be punished for their
> actions.
If you're trying to say that women who take more C$ than necessary and/or
spend it on something other than the children, you could not be more wrong.
CPs can NOT be punished for improperly spending the C$ received, at least
not in the U.S. and I suspect in G.B. as well.
> Similarly most fathers do wish to support their children. The law exists
to
> make the minority who don't wish to support their children aware that they
> can be punished for their actions.
>
Wrong again.
The law exists to transfer money from men to women. It has nothing to do
with a few since all are pre-judged as a dead-beat.
> > > You think that having to support your own children is slavery? Don't
you
> > > feel that they have a right to expect anything from you?
> > Do the children have a right to expect the same from their custodial
> parent?
> > If so, why are they not also forced to supply support as NCPs are?
>
> Someone has to be around to care for the children. It is not possible to
> both work full time and care for children full time.
So? Many mother and fathers in the same family work similar hours and seem
to get by.
I do wish you'd stop making excuses for women who refuse to provide for
themselves and stop using the children as a shield to protect them.
>Usually the custodial
> parent will have a reduced earning potential due to the need to spend time
> caring for the children.
Usually by choice, yes.
> Custodial parents tend to provide more physical support and non-custodial
> parents tend to provide more financial support. Children need both these
> things.
>
The difference is that the CP has the option, the NCP does not.
The NCPs are not given the option of providing both, but are ordered to
supply money only as if that was the complete measure of a father.
> > Why is
> > there no accountability to insure the C$ is used *for* the children?
>
> Why wouldn't it be used for the children?
>
Because they don't have to; don't want to.
Now would you like to answer the question?
> > > A lot of today's women have divorced parents, and it doesn't seem to
be
> > > causing them any problems.
>
> > > Child support hardly represents a fair minimum wage if you consider
> taking
> > > care of children as a job.
> > > Absentee fathers contribute less money to their children than fathers
> who
> > > live with the children.
>
> > > There are lots of choices men can make to avoid paying childsupport.
> > Name one.
>
> Avoid having heterosexual sex. That way you will never have to pay child
> support.
>
There is no such guarantee. By law, if a mother names a man as the father of
the child and for whatever reason he is not notified of the charge or for
any reason fails to show at the hearing within the allotted time (in
Oklahoma, it's 30 days), he will be forever named the father and be forced
to pay C$ even if later DNA testing proves he is *not* the father.
> > > And, yet again, child support does not harm children, it provides
money
> to
> > > feed, clothe and house them.
> > Maybe. It depends on the mother's wishes.
> > It is just as likely to pay for part of mom's food, clothing and rent.
But
> I
> > doubt you have a problem with mothers using children as a shield.
>
> So are you saying that the children of single mothers can be identified
> because they are normally found naked and starving on the streets due to
> child support money being spent on other things than their food, clothing
> and accomodation?
>
No, I'm saying that the C$ is always far in excess of that needed (above a
certain income level) which allows the mother to spend some on the children,
some on the mom, some on the boyfriend, some on gambling...
Even if the C$ is *not* enough to properly support the children, as long as
they are not legally neglected, no one asks where the C$ goes. The legal
definition for neglect is way below bad.
--
Moral character should not be measured so much by how well we act, but more
from why we act well.
Phil #3
Phil#3
My mom used to let my older brother cut the cake and let me decide which
piece I wanted.
It worked out pretty well since the 'cutter' tried to make sure no matter
which piece he got it was as equal as possible to the other.
--
Moral character should not be measured so much by how well we act, but more
from why we act well.
Phil #3
"Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D6FA681...@hotmail.com...
>
>
James Buster
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:28:29 +0100, "Nicky"
> <ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>And in all the divorced couples I know the mother and children have suffered
>>a drop in standard of living.
>
> Ah first it was a hard figure, now it is a sample based on your own
> aquantainces. Hell, that isn't even anecdotal.
Even if true, it's still meaningless. What was the mother's
standard of living *before* her marriage?
James Buster
> Given that on average women's income drops by 28% after divorce/separation
> while men's rises
Question: what is the average woman's income before marriage?
How does it compare after divorce?
> it is extremely unlikely that any woman would break up a
> family in pursuit of financial advantage
You've forgotten one thing: assets. Even if her income was
zero after divorce, if she gets assets (cash, real estate equity,
stock, etc) that she couldn't have earned on her own, she can
(and in many cases, *does*) divorce for financial gain.
Nicky
> care for the
> > children while they are at work.
> What is your point? Do you think women don't do this or
> something?
> Oh. I get it. If men hire babysitters, it's because they're not
> good parents. If women hire babysitters, it's because men
> aren't paying enough child support.
> Isn't that about right?
The point is that it's not possible to work full time and to care for
children full time.
Someone else has to care for the children if a parent is out working full
time.
Nicky
> means
> > that they often can't work full time, so their potential income is lower
> and
> > they have children to feed, house and clothe as well as themselves.
> > To compensate for this the other parent pays child support.
> Why can't they work full time? Many intact marriages have two full-time
> earners.
> You're just making excuses for women not to earn their own way and leech
> from the father.
Someone has to care for the children. If both parents are working full time
then that's a nanny, a nursery, etc, etc. But if one partner is not working
full time then they are available to care for the children, and that costs
considerably less than any other kind of childminding service.
> > An average 28% drop in income doesn't seem like much of an incentive to
> > break up a marriage.
> Please post your data for this insipid lie. Where did you hear this?
There's a report at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4079957,00.html
> > If someone was motivated by money they'd do a lot better to get a
regular
> > job.
> Not exactly. Free money is just that. You give women more credit than they
> deserve. By and large, most women care for their children but I'll wager
> that, as a rule, none care more for their children and their future than
the
> father.
Minimal financial compensation for the loss of earnings and the loss of
future pensions etc in return for doing a very demanding job is not Free
Money.
Nicky
> > aquantainces. Hell, that isn't even anecdotal.
> Even if true, it's still meaningless. What was the mother's
> standard of living *before* her marriage?
The point is that women do not, on average, gain financially as a result of
divorce. Therefore the current Child Support system does not give women a
financial incentive to seek divorce.
It provides a safety net so that children do not suffer extreme poverty if
their parents' relationship fails.
RogerFGay
"Dividing the Spoils"
http://www.colorado.edu/education/DMP/dividing_spoils.html
Fair Division : From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution
by Steven J. Brams (Author), Alan D. Taylor (Author)
(link to www.amazon.com is too long to include, but you can find it
there)
Brams and Taylor also wrote a paper on the application of the fairness
mathematics is divorce settlements. I don't have a cite to that
unfortunately. I read it several years ago.
"Phil#3" <fa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<akpfm6$dml$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>...
Phil#3
> > > If they have children then someone has to care for the children, which
> > means
> > > that they often can't work full time, so their potential income is
lower
> > and
> > > they have children to feed, house and clothe as well as themselves.
> > > To compensate for this the other parent pays child support.
> > Why can't they work full time? Many intact marriages have two full-time
> > earners.
> > You're just making excuses for women not to earn their own way and leech
> > from the father.
>
> Someone has to care for the children. If both parents are working full
time
> then that's a nanny, a nursery, etc, etc. But if one partner is not
working
> full time then they are available to care for the children, and that costs
> considerably less than any other kind of childminding service.
>
Intact parents are both involved in the decision; not so after divorce.
I have a rather large problem with one making a decision that is forcefully
financed by another.
> > > An average 28% drop in income doesn't seem like much of an incentive
to
> > > break up a marriage.
> > Please post your data for this insipid lie. Where did you hear this?
>
> There's a report at
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4079957,00.html
>
Newspaper articles about a study are barely above tissue paper. The
difference is newspaper articles give you some entertainment before use.
> > > If someone was motivated by money they'd do a lot better to get a
> regular
> > > job.
> > Not exactly. Free money is just that. You give women more credit than
they
> > deserve. By and large, most women care for their children but I'll wager
> > that, as a rule, none care more for their children and their future than
> the
> > father.
>
> Minimal financial compensation for the loss of earnings and the loss of
> future pensions etc in return for doing a very demanding job is not Free
> Money.
>
Minimal? Surely you jest.
Parents who demand to be paid to care for their children are parasites, to
put it kindly.
Money that is forcefully removed from another, tax free with no obligations
attached *IS* free money.
MF
Ok, this is a good example of the kind of BS that gets posted on here that
we cannot abide by. It is nothing but outright lies. This is the kind of
spin that we have to fight every day and after a while it gets tiresome.
A. Women do gain financially from divorce, whether they divorce specifically
for the financial gain isn't relevant.
B. The current child support system is a sham, nothing more than an blatant
transfer of wealth from the man to the women, this is because this society
wrongly views women as a protected class and therefore they are not required
to make their own way.
C. If you really wanted a safety net for the child, you would give him to
the parent with the best resources available to properly raise him.
Enough said
------------------------------
-Mark
Whenever man comes up with a better mousetrap, nature immediately comes up
with a better mouse. - James Carswell
John Hill
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Someone has to care for the children. If both parents are working full time
>then that's a nanny, a nursery, etc, etc.
Nanny, nursery Ah so you're thinking about infants and I' thinking
anout teenagers
JH
John Hill
<ni...@lothene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The point is that it's not possible to work full time and to care for
>children full time.
Bollocks Nicky
>Someone else has to care for the children if a parent is out working full
>time.
They call them schools for over 60% of children (as defined by CSA)
JH
Barry Pearson
> Barry Pearson wrote:
>
> > "Tiberius" <sp...@mania-n.info> wrote in message
> >>I used to think that you and Roger were very close until that.
> >>You are both working hard to expose and correct a problem
> >>and I hate to see the way the disagreement has blown up.
> >
> > So do I. It appears to have blown up over something as
> > insignificant as whether child support awards should be
> > decided by litigation or by formula. How much difference
> > does this actually make in practice to the people affected?
>
> You can't make wrong into right by doing it more effectively.
> Absentee "child support" is a FAILED feminist experiment
> designed to enslave men as indentured servants. It has
> caused the destruction of millions of families and hurt tens
> of millions of children, girls and boys. It doesn't matter
> how you decide "child support." It's WRONG to enslave
> men by forcing them into 20 years of indentured servitude.
[snip]
You have it backwards. Typically, historically, the separated families, with the
lone parent living in poverty and on welfare, came before child support. Child
support is typically a government reaction to the problem of lone parents living
in poverty and dawing upon the resources of others.
See the following document about USA child support in the 19th Century. Child
support was created by the courts to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of lone
parents. The intention wasn't to give the lone parent a comfortable life, but to
enable them to survive without drawing on taxpayers.
http://www.ancpr.org/american_invention_of_child_supp.htm
Child support typically starts as an anti-socialist measure. It aims to stop
separated parents transfering their own problems onto the taxpayer. This was the
case with the UK's CSA, created as an anti-socialist measure by an
anti-socialist government. The CSA was hated by feminists because it didn't make
women and children better off, but made taxpayers better off.
Child Support Agenda for the 21st Century
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/what_next.htm
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/faq/
James Buster
> The point is that women do not, on average, gain financially as a result of
> divorce.
Since women do, on average, gain financially during marriage I find
the contention they don't gain financially after divorce, when compared
to their pre-marriage state, absurd and disingenuous.
Bob
MF wrote:
Yep, helping women to leave their husbands, take the children, and still
be supported was the original concept of "child support" and is still
the main purpose of it.
The whole program of absentee child support is a failed 20th century
feminist experiment that has destroyed millions of families and hurt
millions and millions of children. It needs to be dismantled now.
Bob
Bob
James Buster wrote:
> Nicky wrote:
>
>> Given that on average women's income drops by 28% after
>> divorce/separation
>> while men's rises
>
>
> Question: what is the average woman's income before marriage?
> How does it compare after divorce?
The real problem is that men are not supporting women as much after they
leave their husband as they were when they were home being good wives.
That's a "problem" only to man hating feminists who believe that men owe
them a living by right of cunt.
You've forgotten one thing: assets. Even if her income was
zero after divorce, if she gets assets (cash, real estate equity,
stock, etc) that she couldn't have earned on her own, she can
(and in many cases, *does*) divorce for financial gain.
Women own something over 75% of the stock in major US corporations,
several times as much as men own.
Bob