Child Custody: Where Men Hit a Glass Ceiling
Wolfgang Kornholey-o Van-ripper@...easybake.uk Von Wolfgang Kornholey-o Van-ripper
By Rachel Alexander
A close look at child custody, examining how the courts and society's
attitudes towards fathers almost guarantee that fathers will never be much
more than a pocketbook to their ex-wives and girlfriends.
Child custody has emerged as an area where men run into a glass ceiling.
"It's awful to take a child away from its mother!" Sound familiar? That is
because it is the message that has been repeatedly hammered at society by
feminists, as well as some conservatives. But you won't hear the
equivalent, "It's awful to take a child away from its father," because the
feminists aren't pushing equivalent respect for fathers. Instead, you are
more likely to hear this mantra about fathers, "there's so many deadbeat
dads." The feminists have successfully changed the law, the courts, and
societal attitudes when it comes to the custody and care of children from
split homes. Instead of looking at fathers' capabilities and indiscretions
individually, the law makes sweeping assumptions and treats all fathers as
second class. Women, if you are successful in no other area of life, read
this article closely, because you can easily succeed here, the system is so
weighted in your favor. Free money, free legal help, and kind court staff.
If you don't work, or don't work much, you'll make out even better, so it
is best not to work much. And all you need to do is get pregnant! Men, all
I offer for advice to you is this: if you have children, you'd better pray
that you remain a couple.
Sad as it sounds, this is where the law is at. When a couple that has
mutual children splits up, the courts examine just a few factors to
determine custody, known as the "best interests of the child." These
factors make it very likely that the woman will get custody of the children
and hence child support money. Two of the most important factors include
who is better able to "take care" of the child and whether there has been
domestic violence by one of the parents. Well, these factors "sound" good,
but in reality, they have been specifically selected for their heavy bias
against fathers. There are numerous other factors that address equally as
serious issues, that could affect mothers for the worse, or at least
equally affect both parents, such as drug abuse, but these factors are
conveniently not found in the "best interests of the child" statutes (there
must be an actual drug conviction - which is absurd - one drug-addict
mother was able to take away custody away from the father even though she
snorted meth every single day - the courts had no knowledge of her drug
habit!). "Take care" of the child has little to do with being able to
financially support the child. It should, since almost as many women as men
work outside of the home now, but because a lot of women with children who
split up with the fathers aren't very ambitious and sit around the house
watching soap operas, the law has been crafted to label this as "taking
care" of the children, instead of earning money. Since most fathers work
full-time, they lose here.
"Domestic violence" is another disguised way of guaranteeing that the
fathers lose. Women are now trained by society to call the police anytime
their boyfriend or husband loses his temper, and are using and abusing this
taxpayer funded "helpline" at an increasingly alarming rate. Murray A.
Straus, a sociologist and co-director for the Family Research Laboratory at
the University of New Hampshire, reported that at least 30 studies of
domestic violence, including some he had conducted, found that women were
as equally culpable of domestic violence as men. Yet this information is
not widely publicized, and is downplayed by both police officers and the
courts. Women are also abusing restraining orders. A recent article in
Human Events cited a government study that found that fewer than half of
all restraining orders contained even an allegation of physical violence.
Instead of working out their fights, or leaving the man, women are taking
the easy way out and forcing taxpayers to pay for their "tattling" every
time they take up the time of a police officer or court. Of course, many
times it is the woman who caused the fight, but that is not going to end up
in the court's minute entry. Men are laughed at if they are the victims of
domestic violence. One young father attempted to seek free legal help from
a domestic violence law clinic after his ex-wife continued to hit him, and
the clinic turned him away in amusement. Another young father had the
domestic violence of an ex-girlfriend, who had hit him, used against him in
order to justify taking away his child.
It is easy for mothers to obtain free legal aid in pursuing custody of
their children. There are flyers everywhere - in women's restrooms, in
doctor's offices, and in government buildings offering free legal resources
for women to use. The Legal Aid clinics help out so many mothers with
custody disputes and divorces that recently they have had to limit their
representation of custody cases to cases alleging abuse. Domestic violence
legal clinics are at many of the law schools now, and give women free legal
help with divorces, custody disputes, and restraining orders. If there are
low-income requirements, they are rarely verified; any woman can come in
and say she makes very little money, and on her word alone she will receive
free legal help (just like at Planned Parenthood).
The child support laws are crafted not just to provide for the cost of
raising a child, but to bring the parent receiving the support to the level
she would have been at if she were still with the father! The absurdity of
this situation can be seen in this all too common example: A woman cheats
on her husband and then files for no-fault divorce. She gets custody of the
children, AND the benefit of his salary and payraises until their child
turns 18 - all the money benefits as if they were still married (and she
may even get alimony on top of that, but that is a different issue for
another column, and at least with alimony, once the mother remarries, the
alimony goes away)! Why should an ex-wife be guaranteed, years after having
been married, the same living standard of her husband? Absent unhealthy
circumstances, why shouldn't the parent with the BETTER living standards be
considered the one better prepared to take care of the child? That way, one
parent isn't stuck paying for the ex-spouse too. Currently, though, most
child custody laws do not consider financial responsibility of the parent
as one of the "best interests of the child."
Child support is widely touted by governmental agencies as one of the most
important things government does, and the duty of it is glorified almost
nazilike to the level of a moral authority. Yet what exactly does child
support do? The charts for child support award way too much money to the
custodial parent - does anyone really believe that it costs $800/month to
raise a child? In most situations, the mother has custody and makes
considerably less money than the father. According to fairly standard child
support guidelines, if the mother makes $20,000/yr and the father makes
$40,000/yr, and there is one child, the father should pay $535/month in
child support (the formula adds both parents' salaries together, then comes
up with a random number of how much they think that child costs - here it
was $800 - then has the non-custodial parent pay the percentage his salary
is - here it is 66%). Does anyone REALLY THINK that many of the mothers who
resort to going to court to collect child support are the types of mothers
who would spend a full $535/month on one child, as well as another
$265/month of their own money (particularly if the child is older than 5
and in school)? There is no monitoring of that money, and it is very
difficult to get a court to order any type of accounting by the mother. One
such mother of a 6-year old has stated that she is saving the money for
breast implants.
Furthermore, the concept of child support money discourages personal
responsibility and ambition. It penalizes the custodial parent for working
harder and trying to get ahead, because a higher paying job would reduce
the amount of free money they get from the other parent. It is akin to
welfare - if you work hard, you aren't eligible for it. And it is a double
penalty, because it also penalizes the non-custodial parent for working
harder. The more money the non-custodial parent makes, the more money is
taken out of his paycheck to go to the residential parent.
Do we really want to heap benefits on mothers who split up with the
fathers, essentially giving "reward" money to women who have sex, instead
of letting them suffer the consequences? Everyone knows that sex without
true commitment leads to broken down homes and emotional trauma,
particularly for any children involved. Everyone also knows that when you
have sex, you may get pregnant. In some ways, child support is merely a
disguised form of prostitution - women are encouraged to have sex and
receive money from any man who succeeds in impregnating them. After sex,
the man then has no other contact with the woman except to give her money
for the child, and any modicum of visitation he can squeak out. Instead of
teaching women to avoid gratuitous sex, our society encourages sex with its
condom education and giveaways, and easy access to taxpayer-funded Planned
Parenthoods. Women realize they can have gratuitous sex without suffering
any consequences, because the safety net of a man's pocketbook will always
be there for them, thanks to the long arm of the moral authoritarian
government child support agency that reassures them that they are right.
And what exactly are deadbeat dads? Many "deadbeat dads" are simply fathers
who are going through a hard time economically; they may have lost a job,
or simply are having a difficult time paying $800/month in child support.
Sure there are some fathers who have completely rejected any responsibility
towards their children, but that doesn't mean all fathers should be treated
like criminals and rounded up by Sheriff's Offices and taken into jail. Why
are the fathers held accountable while the mothers aren't?
Why this bias against fathers has been allowed to develop may be the result
of conservatives' neglect of this area of the law. Conservatives have
avoided domestic relations law, not wanting to get involved in this area
because of their strong dislike of divorce as well as their old-fashioned
view that mothers are better nurturers than fathers. Consequently, liberal
feminists have had free reign here. What is interesting however, is the
flavor of feminism which has prevailed - it is not the version that
encourages men to be more sensitive, but instead the version that accepts
prostitution and rampant sexual promiscuousness as a component of womens'
equality.
The feminists' efforts in this area are no doubt driven by both their
beliefs that mothers are better nurturers of children, and their resentment
towards men who use women for sex and then leave them. But punishing all
men equally fails to take into account certain things. First of all, those
men eventually remarry and move on with their lives. The courts consider
the new spouse's salary when computing child support! So punishing the
father also results in punishing another completely innocent woman.
Secondly, child support creates resentment and additional fighting between
the parents, since the paying parent resents the other parent and will try
to change the situation. This clogs up the family courts.
So what should the solution be? For starters, how about ending child
support between parents who both want custody of their children? If someone
really wants their children, they will find a way to make ends meet. It
just doesn't cost that much to raise a child, no matter what people whine.
The message we should be sending is, if you can't afford a child, then
abstain from sex! Foster parents receive around $300/month per child. This
isn't very much money. Nobody seems to complain about those children not
receiving $800/month. Why not let the parent who wants to care for the
child, and is more financially capable, have the custody, or at the very
least cut out the child support? That way, no parent is stuck supporting
the other parent. This would also send a message to parents that they
should be ambitious and set good work ethics for their children, instead of
the current message which encourages parents to be lazy and earn less. If
the mother has to work during the day, and the father works evenings, let
the father take care of the children during the day instead of putting them
in daycare. There are better workable solutions than giving the children to
the mother just because she is lazy and stays at home, utilizing the father
only as a money funnel. One mother sat around the house getting high on her
days off, yet still put her child in daycare, using the father's money!
Finally, "domestic violence," which has been abused by women, should be
looked at more closely by the courts if it is to be a factor in determining
child custody. There may be more to "domestic violence" than appears in a
brief minute entry or police report. For example, the mother may have been
racked out on drugs at the time she called the police, as well as every day
of her life, yet this is not taken into consideration as part of the "best
interests of the child" unless there is an actual drug conviction. The
courts should also examine whether the mother is the type to move from
abuser to abuser, which ultimately creates an unstable upbringing for the
child. Is it really better that a child stay with a mother who cycles
through violent or volatile relationships, or is it better that the child
live with the father whose only "history of domestic violence" occurred
when the mother obtained dubious restraining orders against him when she
was having affairs on him? Unfortunately, the laws do not currently take
these circumstances into consideration when considering the "best interests
of the child." Unless a father has an excellent attorney who is able to get
a hold of hard evidence proving these types of circumstances, and has
success persuading a judge to give these factors some weight even though
they are not in the law, a father is simply out of luck. He has reached the
glass ceiling for fathers in child custody.
Note: The author has done work with a domestic violence law clinic and has
studied this area of the law in law school.
---
Send email to Rachel Alexander:
edi...@intellectualconservative.com
See prior columns by Rachel Alexander:
http://intellectualconservative.com/page1026.html
David Deilley
> Sad, but true........good article. You'd think there would be more
interest from men on
> this issue since 45,000 fathers are divorce every year in Canada and less
the 3 per cent
> every get physical custody. Surely not all of these guys are monsters.
Hey Hansel, you moron... Still think Chris Tyler is a "feminazi
socilaist" -- or is that dim little pea-brain of yours starting to realize
that you dumped shit and abuse on someone that AGREES with your political
views.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
even worse treatment. Such fears are not unfounded.
It won't be much longer before a critical mass is reached, when men will
find adequate safety in numbers to visit a little Justice of the assholes
who have been fucking over our families for the past many years. It's
happening now in the UK, with Fathers4Justice. Soon here, I think.
"Chris M Tyler" <cmt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:shpsnvkb1p10pln4c...@4ax.com...
> Sad, but true........good article. You'd think there would be more
interest from men on
> this issue since 45,000 fathers are divorce every year in Canada and less
the 3 per cent
> every get physical custody. Surely not all of these guys are monsters.
>
>
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:57:40 GMT, "Von Wolfgang Kornholey-o Van-ripper"
<Von Wolfgang
up the Socilaist Collateral Damage@..NYC.Ma Telly up the Socilaist Collateral Damage
"David Deilley" <integ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LPufb.13126$pl3.8442@pd7tw3no...
hmmmmm, adjusting your stupidity again David as a socialist moron..
>
>
up the Socilaist Collateral Damage@..NYC.Ma Telly up the Socilaist Collateral Damage
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bln2ps$c4p$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> (K): "Chris Tyler" has posted to these newsgroups as Karen (ckrellin),
> Sharon (slohre) and Cy Coe for starters. The latter uses google to post
> his messages to usenet - like you. What point were you making, exactly -
> that YOU support Ken Wiebe on this issue?
The Point is KKKaren Gordon, that scum sucking NDP mustachio feminiazi's
like you, "don't give one shit about children" or their feelings, and would
sell every child in Canada into slavery and use children just for your sick
and perverted agenda full of men hating propaganda......
Now bitch, you should just pay your child support, stop sticking your NDP
golden dildo up your ass, clean up your stupidity and say your sorry to
every father in this country for your hate crimes and the harm that you and
your NDP assholes have caused. And while your on your knee's blowing every
father forgiveness, shave that god dam mustachio look also...then slap your
stupidity and say your sorry to all the NGlanders out there for your
stupidity. Then fuck off.
up the Socilaist Collateral Damage@..NYC.Ma Telly up the Socilaist Collateral Damage
"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
wrote in message news:37vfb.13186$pl3.2336@pd7tw3no...
> There is interest from men. For the moment, most remain silent for fear of
> even worse treatment. Such fears are not unfounded.
>
> It won't be much longer before a critical mass is reached, when men will
> find adequate safety in numbers to visit a little Justice of the assholes
> who have been fucking over our families for the past many years. It's
> happening now in the UK, with Fathers4Justice. Soon here, I think.
Not soon it here and growing by leaps and bounds, and the feminiazi cunts
will run in fear.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
> Ken Wiebe aka "Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> >> There is interest from men. For the moment, most remain silent for fear
of
> >> even worse treatment. Such fears are not unfounded.
> >> It won't be much longer before a critical mass is reached, when men
will
> >> find adequate safety in numbers to visit a little Justice of the
assholes
> >> who have been fucking over our families for the past many years. It's
> >> happening now in the UK, with Fathers4Justice. Soon here, I think.
>
the
> Socilaist Collateral Damage@..NYC.Ma) writes:
> > Not soon it here and growing by leaps and bounds, and the feminiazi
cunts
> > will run in fear.
>
> anything akin to reality. Seems the 'feminazi cunts' are now looking for
> your sweet little faces right across the country - to force you to pay
your
> child support. Real scared .....
>
> http://www.wantedposters.com/
Is that cheesehead asshole still around? Last I heard, some lawyers were
looking for him to sue his ass into oblivion.
*********
Oh..... are they not the same criminals who commit computer crimes and brag
about it. Yes, I believe the world has heard about these criminals, and
their leader is Jim Gouda of Meadowvale Town Centre Mississauga, Toronto
Ontario L5N 6A2 CA 123-4567 - I got his real phone number and his real home
address too.
But it is really interesting that you support criminal crimes and illegal
activites also, "Feminiazi KKKaren Gordon"
Here what the law states KKKaren, and you have no problem with criminals
breaking the law, interesting..it says alot of you and the NDP then.
Canadian Criminal Code - Computer Crimes
There is a prevailing attitude amongst many people that computer crime is
not a crime. The attitude seems to be that although it is not acceptable to
break into someone's house it is okay to break into their computer. Also,
the attitude seems to be that it is okay to vandalize computer data but not
property like automobile tires.
The Criminal Code of Canada is very clear on these issues. Unauthorized
access to any computer system is a crime punishable by a lengthy jail term.
Likewise mischief performed on computer data is as much a crime as mischief
performed against physical property.
At least two sections of the Criminal Code address the issue. On the one
hand there is the issue of unauthorized use (eg. breaking into a system) and
on the other hand there is the issue of mischief (eg. vandalizing data).
The following sections of the Canadian Criminal Code taken, with minor
typographic changes, from Tremeear's Criminal Code 1993 should make it clear
that those attitudes are mistaken.
PART IX: OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY
342.1: Unauthorized Use of Computer
(1) Every one who, fraudulently and without color of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,
(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device,
intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function
of a computer system, or
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system
with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence
under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) In this section, computer program means data representing instructions
or statements that, when executed in a computer system, causes the computer
system to perform a function; computer service includes data processing and
the storage or retrieval of data;
computer system means a device that, or a group of interconnected or related
devices one or more of which,
(a) contains computer programs or other data, and
(b) pursuant to computer programs,
(i) performs logic and control, and
(ii) may perform any other function; data means representations of
information or of concepts that are being prepared or have been prepared in
a form suitable for use in a computer system; electro-magnetic, acoustic, or
other device means any device or apparatus that is used or is capable of
being used to intercept any function of a computer system, but does not
include a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not
better than normal hearing; function includes logic, control, arithmetic,
deletion, storage and retrieval and communications or telecommunications to,
from or within a computer system; intercept includes listen to or record a
function of a computer system, or acquire the substance, meaning or purport
thereof.
PART XI: WILFUL AND FORBIDDEN ACTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
430.[387]: Mischief
(1) Every one commits mischief who willfully
(a) destroys or damages property;
(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or
operation of property; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use,
enjoyment or operation of property.
(1.1) Every one commits mischief who willfully
(a) destroys or alters data;
(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of
data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access
thereto.
(2) Every one who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
(3) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a
testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds one thousand dollars
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable by summary conviction.
(4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than
property described in subsection (3), (a) is guilty of an indictable offence
and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable by summary conviction.
(5) Every one who commits mischief in relation to data,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable by summary conviction.
(5.1) Every one who willfully does an act or willfully omits to do an act
that it is his duty to do, if that act or omission is likely to constitute
mischief causing actual danger to life, or to constitute mischief in
relation to property or data,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable by summary conviction.
(6) No person commits mischief within the meaning of this section by reason
only that
(a) he stops work as a result of the failure of his employer and himself to
agree on any matter relating to his employment;
(b) he stops work as a result of the failure of his employer and a
bargaining agent acting on his behalf to agree on any matter relating to his
employment; or
(c) he stops work as a result of his taking part in a combination of workmen
or employees for their own reasonable protection as workmen or employees.
(7) No person commits mischief within the meaning of this section by reason
only that he attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place for
the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.
(8) In this section, data has the same meaning as in section 342.1
See Also For more information see the extensive on-line information provided
by Department of Justice of Canada.
ITS Network Security Officer <n...@uwo.ca>
Reviewed June 2001
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Illegitimate Feminazi's wage illegitimate wars
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*********
Yes and here an E-mail about WantedPostersDotCom
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:28 AM
Subject: Wantedposters.com
Dear Sir:
I am an attorney who represents a father who has been wrongly accused of owing child support. Do you have the Texas address of the above referenced group? Also, do you know anything about their alleged non-profit status? Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely, RD Cotton
Raymond D. Cotton Attorney at Law
Mintz Levin Law Firm
Washington, DC 20004
>
>
>
>
Chris M Tyler
the Socilaist Collateral Damage@..NYC.Ma> wrote:
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:bln2ps$c4p$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >
> > (K): "Chris Tyler" has posted to these newsgroups as Karen (ckrellin),
> > Sharon (slohre) and Cy Coe for starters. The latter uses google to post
> > his messages to usenet - like you. What point were you making, exactly -
> > that YOU support Ken Wiebe on this issue?
Karen G, I noticed your ignorance above. Usually I am spared reading your lies because I
have filtered you out long ago. Obviously you can't read a header, but hey don't let that
stop you from make false claims. I'll bet big money there is a court file some where with
a complete history of yor false allegations; your stock in trade.
"Socialism hater"
you demented idiot.
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
Terry's Useful Idiots:
The NG asylum
Dilbert Deilly Phone 250-727-8330
Maxed out Bushwanker
Hartman Shiftless
Gweg Mcdonald
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com>
A Deilly Quote:
"Perhpas you don't realise it, but you are CLEARLT a "laftist" -- everyone
on
this newsgroup except communist agitator Mark Hansel is laffing at you."
"David Deilley" <integ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LPufb.13126$pl3.8442@pd7tw3no...
David Deilley
> Wy don't you fuckoff to a corner and go and play with yourself
> you demented idiot.
Way to go, Terr.
You really told ME off!
Is this your "final warning"??
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>Karen wrote:
> (K): That's probably more wishful thinking on your part, misogynists, than
> anything akin to reality. Seems the 'feminazi cunts' are now looking for
> your sweet little faces right across the country - to force you to pay
your
> child support. Real scared .....
>
> http://www.wantedposters.com/
Ooooh...if all else fails, try a public shaming? How positively medieval!
LOL... I sure hope that whoever adds pics to that site will make absolutely
sure they have court documents indicating that a particular person is indeed
a dead-beat parent. And then, there is always that possibility of a
deadbeat becoming murderously enraged once he/she discovers they are being
publically exposed. Are any protective measures in place just in case a
deadbeat reacts violently to such a campaign?
I'm thinking of all the women who had divorced their violent husbands. Such
public exposure could be quite provocative. Not sure if some of these
victims of violence will want to co-operate with such a campaign. They may
feel it's best just to leave things alone...they've rid themselves of a
violent spouse and may not want to provoke him/her further by extracting
money from them. Sometimes, even a mild-mannered and otherwise reasonable
person could be provoked beyond the breaking point.
This public campaign is harsh...truly harsh...be prepared for a harsh
reaction. I'm not sure I would want to participate if I were in a similar
situation as some of these divorced women, especially those who had been
physically and emotional abused by their spouses. I think I'd rather live
safely, even if rather poorly, than risk my life or the life of my children
just for a few extra dollars in my pockets. It's enough to just be rid of
an abusive spouse. I see no need to track them down and force them to pay
up what's owing to the kids.
Take care,
Heidi
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
There are very few violent men, and (largely for the reasons you suggest)
they rarely are exposed in public. No, what people like cheesehead
"wantedposters" do is harass normal everyday fathers who are either down on
their luck and broke, or the guys who refuse to pay until they get some sort
of reasonable parenatal role in their children's lives.
Cowards like KKKaren and the cheesehead would never go after a man who was
serious about dealing with them.
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:blvvmh$h7rsi$1...@ID-127517.news.uni-berlin.de...
Heidi Graw
>"Chris M Tyler" <cmt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qja7ov0arlgmrqb9j...@4ax.com...
(snip)
>Chris wrote:
> It just goes to show that many are crying wolf in the first place. I know
if I were owed
> money by say a Hell's Angle, I think hunting him down and dragging him in
to court would
> be that last thing I'd do.
Why do I get the impression that a Hell's Angel would not abandon his own
kids, regardless whether or not he is divorced? I'm thinking of their
"Teddy Bear" drive and Christmas Bureau Fundraising effort. I'm thinking
that if a "brother" did wrong by his children, other "brothers" would make
sure that situation is taken care of in their own way.
Hmmm...maybe we outta sic Hell's Angel's after those deadbeats? I'm sure
they'd be far more effective that any government institution or tattle-tale
web-site! ;-)
Any Hell's Angel reading this post? If so, please add your comment!
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
> Hello Heidi;
>
> There are very few violent men, and (largely for the reasons you suggest)
> they rarely are exposed in public. No, what people like cheesehead
> "wantedposters" do is harass normal everyday fathers who are either down
on
> their luck and broke,
Yea, I know...there are a few men in my social circle who are in similar
positions. I have the unpleasant task of garnisheeing their wages on
payroll day. When I see what's left over for these guys to live off
of,...well, they'd get more being on welfare! Some of these garnishee
orders are totally unreasonable.
>or the guys who refuse to pay until they get some sort
> of reasonable parenatal role in their children's lives.
Such a tactic tends to backfire. I read a few things about "PAS", the
psychologist does offer some constructive advice on what a man in such a
position can do. I'm not sure how prevalent PAS is. Certainly within my
own circle of aquaintances PAS is not evident so I'm looking at this
information with a rather sceptical eye.
Take care,
Heidi
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
>
> >"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> wrote in message news:sMYgb.47214$9l5.26927@pd7tw2no...
> > Hello Heidi;
> >
> > There are very few violent men, and (largely for the reasons you
suggest)
> > they rarely are exposed in public. No, what people like cheesehead
> > "wantedposters" do is harass normal everyday fathers who are either down
> on
> > their luck and broke,
>
> Yea, I know...there are a few men in my social circle who are in similar
> positions. I have the unpleasant task of garnisheeing their wages on
> payroll day. When I see what's left over for these guys to live off
> of,...well, they'd get more being on welfare! Some of these garnishee
> orders are totally unreasonable.
It's the law, and the law is an ass.
> >or the guys who refuse to pay until they get some sort
> > of reasonable parenatal role in their children's lives.
>
> Such a tactic tends to backfire.
Sometimes. I only recommend it for men who are serious activists prepared to
face jail, and their kids don't need the money. You'd be surprised how many
kids never see dime one of the "child support" money, or how many ex-wives
with the kids live a lot better than the ex-husband who pays her.
> I read a few things about "PAS", the
> psychologist does offer some constructive advice on what a man in such a
> position can do. I'm not sure how prevalent PAS is. Certainly within my
> own circle of aquaintances PAS is not evident so I'm looking at this
> information with a rather sceptical eye.
Nobody knows. I'm not persuaded that it is wise to "medicalize" a problem
that is caused by a corrupt legal system. That sort of error can only cause
more problems than it solves.
MediiEvil_the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling
> they'd be far more effective that any government institution or
tattle-tale
> web-site! ;-)
You just being an idiot, child support is slavery and extortion, not only
did you miss the point being made but you have the gull to call fathers
deadbeat, you sound more like a socilaist feminist dead beat then any father
could.
Take your feminist stupidity to some feminiazi program and be a whiny idiot
with them.
>
> Any Hell's Angel reading this post? If so, please add your comment!
They just tell you to fuck off honey.
>
> Take care,
> Heidi
>
>
>
Heidi Graw
>"MediiEvil_the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling"
<MediiEvil@the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling..cagv.666> wrote in message
news:MFfhb.158$XS4.41@edtnps84...
>
(snip)
> MediiEvil wrote:
> You just being an idiot, child support is slavery and extortion,
Yep...you have a choice to submit voluntarily or be forced into. As a
parent, I'm pretty much a slave to my children. The price for maintainance
is also extremely high. If I refuse at any time to support my kids,
government agencies will take them away from me and hand them over to paid
labour, ie. foster-parenting system. Of course, I planned my slavery and
the price of extortion. Most divorced parents at some point had also
committed themselves to supporting their children. The only difference is
that *some* believe they can change their minds at any point in time in a
child's development. Various laws ensure that I remain committed until
they've reached the age of majority. I'm not allowed to change my mind. If
I do, I lose the kids.
You're fooling yourself if you believe divorced men are the only slaves
being extorted. Married parents experience this, too. We've got government
enforcers around to ensure we remain committed to our kids. Like it or not,
despite all the flaws, I do support anything that ensures parents do not
neglect or abuse their children. In some cases, the law does not go far
enough. For example: all too often children are returned to abusive and
neglectful parents. I figure, if you screw up once, you shouldn't get a
second chance! One strike and you're out! The trouble with that, however,
is that we'd have millions of children being fostered. So, we allow the
kids to return home to the abuse and neglect. <sigh>
>not only
> did you miss the point being made but you have the gull to call fathers
> deadbeat,
No, the deadbeat is one who deliberately and willfully avoids supporting
his/her children. He/she will use every trick available to avoid paying
what's owing to the kids. The poor sap who makes an attempt, but can't
quite meet the requirements, is o.k. in my books. I know a few of these
poor saps and I work *with* them to come up with ways and means for them to
meet those demands. And quite frankly, they appreciate my efforts and the
suggestions I give them. I've also given them tips on how to communicate
with their ex-spouses so they back off a wee bit.
> >Heidi had written:
> > Any Hell's Angel reading this post? If so, please add your comment!
>
> They just tell you to fuck off honey.
Actually, no. There's a Hell's Angel house just 3 doors down from me. The
teenagers in my neighbourhood are aware of them. Strange how all of a
sudden break-ins and car thefts stopped! Their presence put the fear into
these young punks! LOL... I'm seriously thinking of baking some cookies
and going over to visit with them! I'll ask what they think of dead-beats
and report back here. ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
>
> >"MediiEvil_the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling"
> <MediiEvil@the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling..cagv.666> wrote in message
> news:MFfhb.158$XS4.41@edtnps84...
> >
> (snip)
> > MediiEvil wrote:
> > You just being an idiot, child support is slavery and extortion,
>
> Yep...you have a choice to submit voluntarily or be forced into. As a
> parent, I'm pretty much a slave to my children.
That's ridiculous. As a woman, you have a choice about every aspect of
becoming a parent at every step of the way. "Voluntary slavery" is an
oxymoron.
> The price for maintainance
> is also extremely high. If I refuse at any time to support my kids,
> government agencies will take them away from me and hand them over to paid
> labour, ie. foster-parenting system. Of course, I planned my slavery and
> the price of extortion.
Are you suggesting that you are somehow prevented from exercising a choice
to put up your children for adoption? If so, how so?
> Most divorced parents at some point had also
> committed themselves to supporting their children. The only difference is
> that *some* believe they can change their minds at any point in time in a
> child's development.
Anyone with an understanding of the system knows that mothers can change
their minds at any time. From conception to whenever, mothers can choose
birth control (or not), abortion (or not), adoption (or not). Which of those
choices are available to men who would prefer not to be parents?
> Various laws ensure that I remain committed until
> they've reached the age of majority. I'm not allowed to change my mind.
If
> I do, I lose the kids.
What??? The whole point here is that you do have a choice about 'losing'
your kids, or not. You are allowed to change your mind, mothers do it
frequently. It is the fathers who are not allowed to change their mind, if
they actually ever had a choice in the first place - which many do not.
> You're fooling yourself if you believe divorced men are the only slaves
> being extorted.
You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. I understand that it is
trendy to think that mothers might have some similar disadvantage, but it
simply isn't so.
> Married parents experience this, too. We've got government
> enforcers around to ensure we remain committed to our kids.
You absolutely do not. You can place them for adoption whenever you wish.
> Like it or not,
> despite all the flaws, I do support anything that ensures parents do not
> neglect or abuse their children. In some cases, the law does not go far
> enough. For example: all too often children are returned to abusive and
> neglectful parents. I figure, if you screw up once, you shouldn't get a
> second chance! One strike and you're out! The trouble with that,
however,
> is that we'd have millions of children being fostered. So, we allow the
> kids to return home to the abuse and neglect. <sigh>
We 'allow' children to return home to abusive mothers. It's not so simple
for fathers, even if the 'abuse' is merely a false accusation.
>
> >not only
> > did you miss the point being made but you have the gull to call fathers
> > deadbeat,
>
> No, the deadbeat is one who deliberately and willfully avoids supporting
> his/her children. He/she will use every trick available to avoid paying
> what's owing to the kids.
In the law, there is nothing "owing to the kids". That's merely rhetoric
intended to hide the reality. Reality is that the law creates a debt (out of
thin air) to the custodial parent - not to the children. The courts really
don't give a shit if the children ever see a dime of it, and many do not.
> The poor sap who makes an attempt, but can't
> quite meet the requirements, is o.k. in my books. I know a few of these
> poor saps and I work *with* them to come up with ways and means for them
to
> meet those demands. And quite frankly, they appreciate my efforts and the
> suggestions I give them. I've also given them tips on how to communicate
> with their ex-spouses so they back off a wee bit.
That's nice, but it has SFA to do with what goes on in the courts.
> > >Heidi had written:
> > > Any Hell's Angel reading this post? If so, please add your comment!
>
> >
> > They just tell you to fuck off honey.
>
> Actually, no. There's a Hell's Angel house just 3 doors down from me.
The
> teenagers in my neighbourhood are aware of them. Strange how all of a
> sudden break-ins and car thefts stopped! Their presence put the fear into
> these young punks! LOL... I'm seriously thinking of baking some cookies
> and going over to visit with them! I'll ask what they think of dead-beats
> and report back here. ;-)
Good idea, maybe they have a clue. You clearly do not.
MediiEvil_the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling
>
> >"MediiEvil_the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling"
> <MediiEvil@the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling..cagv.666> wrote in message
> news:MFfhb.158$XS4.41@edtnps84...
> >
> (snip)
> > MediiEvil wrote:
> > You just being an idiot, child support is slavery and extortion,
>
> Yep...you have a choice to submit voluntarily or be forced into. As a
> parent, I'm pretty much a slave to my children. The price for
maintainance
> is also extremely high. If I refuse at any time to support my kids,
> government agencies will take them away from me and hand them over to paid
> labour, ie. foster-parenting system.
Oh please, use your head, if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have had
any, if you decide to get rid of the other parent that's your stupidity.
Typical feminist socialist thinking. Oh and by the way you are not a parent
in the sense you think, the state is the parent, you have no rights with
your children, you have only reasonability's. So says the Government of
Canada says, and if you think the government can't just take your kids away,
your mistaken, they can, and they do not need a reason. Get a fucking job
also, why should the man be forced to pay for you stupid women.
Of course, I planned my slavery and
> the price of extortion. Most divorced parents at some point had also
> committed themselves to supporting their children. The only difference is
> that *some* believe they can change their minds at any point in time in a
> child's development.
Well you should have pick your partner better, I raise my kids by myself and
I don't ask the mother for a dime, why because I not into the extortion
program like you are, you socialist feminist idiot believe you are entitled
to everything, get the state parent to pay you...since you believe they look
after you anyhow.
Various laws ensure that I remain committed until
> they've reached the age of majority.
Bullshit the state make sure dads pay even after the age of majority and a
lot of women abuse that just to keep the cash cow flow coming. Men are
getting wise to this bullshit and getting to the point of enough is enough
with this socialist feminist stupidity. Get over it. Pay your own way.
I'm not allowed to change my mind. If
> I do, I lose the kids.
The kids are not yours, they are the state children no matter how you want
to look at it, after all as I said the state is the parent....
>
> You're fooling yourself if you believe divorced men are the only slaves
> being extorted.
Bullshit it the majority of men who go to jail, lose the drivers licence and
pass port. In the 12 years I been doing legal work I seen not one women
jailed for non payment of child support. Your fooling yourself big-time.
Married parents experience this, too. We've got government
> enforcers around to ensure we remain committed to our kids.
Bullshit, the government is only interested in the blood money made off the
back of children.
Like it or not,
> despite all the flaws, I do support anything that ensures parents do not
> neglect or abuse their children.
I bet you do as long as you get your cash...
In some cases, the law does not go far
> enough. For example: all too often children are returned to abusive and
> neglectful parents.
True, mostly mothers, I've seen thousands of kids trashed over by mother and
no body cares if the women does that, other times it is not the real dad
doing the abusing it the new boyfriend or step dad you doesn't have kids.
I figure, if you screw up once, you shouldn't get a
> second chance! One strike and you're out! The trouble with that,
however,
> is that we'd have millions of children being fostered. So, we allow the
> kids to return home to the abuse and neglect. <sigh>
Government has no right or even belong in people's personal business..
>
> >not only
> > did you miss the point being made but you have the gull to call fathers
> > deadbeat,
>
> No, the deadbeat is one who deliberately and willfully avoids supporting
> his/her children.
Oh like women do, I see, if they don't get the cash for support well use the
kids a pawns or like PAS, ya right.
He/she will use every trick available to avoid paying
> what's owing to the kids.
Oh and what about those dads who lose their jobs or get hurt at work and no
longer can work, oh right that doesn't matter does it.
The poor sap who makes an attempt, but can't
> quite meet the requirements, is o.k. in my books. I know a few of these
> poor saps and I work *with* them to come up with ways and means for them
to
> meet those demands. And quite frankly, they appreciate my efforts and the
> suggestions I give them. I've also given them tips on how to communicate
> with their ex-spouses so they back off a wee bit.
In other words kiss the women's ass and maybe she will let you see the
kids...Right.
>
> > >Heidi had written:
> > > Any Hell's Angel reading this post? If so, please add your comment!
>
> >
> > They just tell you to fuck off honey.
>
> Actually, no. There's a Hell's Angel house just 3 doors down from me.
The
> teenagers in my neighbourhood are aware of them. Strange how all of a
> sudden break-ins and car thefts stopped! Their presence put the fear into
> these young punks! LOL... I'm seriously thinking of baking some cookies
> and going over to visit with them! I'll ask what they think of dead-beats
> and report back here. ;-)
Good for you I'll ask my bother back east who in their gang of thieve, women
pimping assholes what they think of women like you, know what, they just
pimp your ass out.
>
> Take care,
> Heidi
>
>
>
Heidi Graw
> > > MediiEvil wrote:
> > > You just being an idiot, child support is slavery and extortion,
> >Heidi wrote:
> > Yep...you have a choice to submit voluntarily or be forced into. As a
> > parent, I'm pretty much a slave to my children.
> Bimballi wrote:
> That's ridiculous. As a woman, you have a choice about every aspect of
> becoming a parent at every step of the way. "Voluntary slavery" is an
> oxymoron.
O.k...then voluntary servitude! Better? So, let's take a look at men's
choices if they don't want to be parents:
1. They can refrain from sex with women.
2. They can kill themselves at any time before or after their children are
born.
3. They can run away and hide and hope they won't be caught.
Pick one of the three and be done with it! And quit whining about having NO
choice. You have THREE!
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>"MediiEvil_the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling"
<MediiEvil@the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling..cagv.666> wrote in message
(snip)
>MediiEvil wrote:
> Oh please, use your head, if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have had
> any,
Agreed!
> Oh and by the way you are not a parent
> in the sense you think, the state is the parent, you have no rights with
> your children, you have only reasonability's.
Well, actually, the State doesn't own the kids. The children belong to
themselves. Hubby and I are only the temporary custodians, even though they
are of our flesh and blood. They're our offspring...and once sprung off
they belong to themselves. And, yes, we have all the responsibility and
none of the rights. My children have rights of which I am keenly cognizant.
I support their rights and make sure that no-one else infringes on their
right to live within a family, have access to an education, medical care,
food, shelter and clothing. I use the UN declaration of rights for children
as my guide. They are their own little persons who belong to themselves,
not to me, not to their father, not to the state, nor any other care-giver.
Heidi
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
On the contrary, feminists and socialists have granted de-facto ownership of
your children to the state. You are naive and perhaps blissfully ignorant if
you think that's not true.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
All three require significant sacrifice in quality of life, or just plain
sacrifice of life in the case of option 2. They aren't really what most
people would consider "choice" in the same way that women know it. Would you
seriously propose those options to women as reasonable alternatives to
abortion or adoption? If not, then what makes you think they are reasonable
options for men?
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> So, let's take a look at men's
> > choices if they don't want to be parents:
> >
> > 1. They can refrain from sex with women.
> > 2. They can kill themselves at any time before or after their children
>> are
> > born.
> > 3. They can run away and hide and hope they won't be caught.
> >
> > Pick one of the three and be done with it! And quit whining about
having
> >NO
> > choice. You have THREE!
> Bimballi wrote:
> All three require significant sacrifice in quality of life, or just plain
> sacrifice of life in the case of option 2. They aren't really what most
> people would consider "choice" in the same way that women know it.
I missed a 4th choice:
4. Get neutered!
So, here's a recap of options men could choose if they do not wish to be
parents:
Preventative measures:
1. Avoid sex with women.
2. Get neutered
Post-coital measures to that "accidentally" conceived child:
1. Run away and hide and hope not to get caught.
2. Kill yourself.
As for women's choices if they do not wish to be a parent:
1. Avoid sex with men
2. Get neutered
Post-coital measures to that "accidentally" conceived child:
1. Abort the embryo or foetus.
2. Abandon the child at someone's doorstep, and hope you don't get caught
to face charges of child endangerment.
3. Adopt it out.
4. Kill yourself.
There are two post-coital choices available to both genders: abandonment
and killing oneself. Killing the born child is not an option! I need to
stress that, because the born child has rights of its own.
As for the other two options available to women...well...by virtue of
biology she has that natural right! Legally contrived "abortion
equivalency" to compensate for a man's lack of a womb, is pretty much
absurd. Imagine a man seeing his child and pointing out to his friends,
"See that kid over there? She's my abortion!" We could have thousands and
millions of "abortions" running around. Now imagine what the poor kid will
think about that. "I'm an abortion." I have to ask you....Do you *really*
and *truly* want to see that happening?
As for adoptions, my personal take: if the mother doesn't want to keep it,
the child should be offered *first* to the biological father. If he doesn't
want it, perhaps any other member of either side of the families could take
it. If none of them want it, let the child be adopted by strangers.
So, if men want to come forward to adopt children that women don't want, by
all means, I support your right to bring your case before the adoption
courts!
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> My children have rights of which I am keenly
> >cognizant.
> > I support their rights and make sure that no-one else infringes on their
> > right to live within a family, have access to an education, medical
care,
> > food, shelter and clothing. I use the UN declaration of rights for
> >children
> > as my guide. They are their own little persons who belong to
themselves,
> > not to me, not to their father, not to the state, nor any other
>> care-giver.
> Bimballi wrote:
> On the contrary, feminists and socialists have granted de-facto ownership
of
> your children to the state.
Bimballi, it matters not one whit what various courtroom judges may decide
in any given situation re: "ownership" of children. Canada has agreed to
the UN's Children's Charter. *All* decisions regarding the welfare of
children, *must* be measured against what that Charter states. If the
courts do not take those into consideration, they *must* be challenged on
their decisions. I've made it a personal commitment to my own children that
if anyone messes with their rights, I'd be their strongest, most vocal and
most visceral advocate! That document is such a powerful tool that parents
can use. In fact, I have already used it a few times when others tried to
infringe on my children's rights. In each case, I won! ;-) It's amazing
how those who would infringe of my children's rights will back down when you
wave that Charter in front of their faces! And, of course, it helps if you
keep ongoing and careful records...document, document...I cannot stress that
enough.
Take care,
Heidi
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
Unless it was you, in collusion with the courts, who messes with their
rights. Nobody would stop you except in very serious and very obvious cases
of abuse.
> That document is such a powerful tool that parents
> can use. In fact, I have already used it a few times when others tried to
> infringe on my children's rights. In each case, I won! ;-)
No doubt. Somehow, fathers don't seem to fare quite so well with it in
Canadian courts. Perhaps that's because the UN is such a hotbed of Canadian
radical feminists that the system is a bit skewed in favor of women.
> It's amazing
> how those who would infringe of my children's rights will back down when
you
> wave that Charter in front of their faces! And, of course, it helps if
you
> keep ongoing and careful records...document, document...I cannot stress
that
> enough.
All of that is a good idea, but none of it is terribly persuasive to
Canadian courts. Perhaps it works better for whites than for niggers, more
because they are white than because of any virtue inherent in the documents.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
>
> >"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> wrote in message news:mqohb.57509$6C4.43020@pd7tw1no...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> So, let's take a look at men's
> > > choices if they don't want to be parents:
> > >
> > > 1. They can refrain from sex with women.
> > > 2. They can kill themselves at any time before or after their
children
> >> are
> > > born.
> > > 3. They can run away and hide and hope they won't be caught.
> > >
> > > Pick one of the three and be done with it! And quit whining about
> having
> > >NO
> > > choice. You have THREE!
>
> > Bimballi wrote:
> > All three require significant sacrifice in quality of life, or just
plain
> > sacrifice of life in the case of option 2. They aren't really what most
> > people would consider "choice" in the same way that women know it.
>
> I missed a 4th choice:
>
> 4. Get neutered!
From a political/legal perspective, that one does not work for men. It might
not work for women either, although the actual risk is much less.
> So, here's a recap of options men could choose if they do not wish to be
> parents:
>
> Preventative measures:
> 1. Avoid sex with women.
> 2. Get neutered
From a legal perspective, neither of those two are effective. Men who are
not biological fathers can be, and have been, ordered to accept unwanted
parental responsibilities. All that is necessary is that they be deemed
"responsible" by a court. The rules vary from place to place and time to
time, but they all seem to boil down to: "whatever a judge feels doing like
on any given day". In general, judges prefer to avoid any trouble from
feminists - regardless of any "equality" or "injustice" issues.
> Post-coital measures to that "accidentally" conceived child:
> 1. Run away and hide and hope not to get caught.
> 2. Kill yourself.
#1 is not the sort of choice we are referring to. What we are referring to
are *legal* choices. Choices that a person is *at liberty* to make, without
fear of legal repercussions.
#2 is also illegal, and is a stupid response - even for a feminist.
> As for women's choices if they do not wish to be a parent:
> 1. Avoid sex with men
> 2. Get neutered
As explained above, those are not effective in the legal/political arena.
> Post-coital measures to that "accidentally" conceived child:
> 1. Abort the embryo or foetus.
Yes, that is a legal choice available to women, but not a legal choice for
any man. He can neither prevent nor cause, her unilateral decision will be
forced on him by the law.
> 2. Abandon the child at someone's doorstep, and hope you don't get caught
> to face charges of child endangerment.
No need to be so melodramatic. There are adoption agencies and government
ministries and various charities where a child can be safely and legally
abandoned by a mother. There is no legal requirement for her to inform the
father prior to abandonment of the child. Her unilateral decision will be
supported by the law. Children can also be given to relatives, with no need
of any official involvement. It's quite common.
> 3. Adopt it out.
Yes, that is legal. Again, a unilateral decision by the mother is all that
is necessary. Fathers are optional, and at her discretion.
> 4. Kill yourself
Illegal, and a rather silly answer.
> There are two post-coital choices available to both genders: abandonment
> and killing oneself. Killing the born child is not an option! I need to
> stress that, because the born child has rights of its own.
Why isn't it one of your options? It has been done, mostly by mothers. It
was accepted and legal, not so long ago, in most places. It still is, under
certain circumstances.
Regardless of all that, my original claim remains unchallenged: Men do not
have any legal unilateral choices regarding termination of parental
responsibilities, while women have several.
I suggest that this is by legislative design, and not a matter of biological
necessity. Furthermore, it is a clear case of anti-men discrimination and
inequality before the law, that is vigorously defended by hypocritical
feminists who only pretend to be interested in equality.
> As for the other two options available to women...well...by virtue of
> biology she has that natural right!
There is no such thing as a "natural right", in the sense that you mean it.
Would you also defend a man's "natural right" regarding the disposition of
any child that is the result of his fertilization? Or is it only his
"natural obligations" that interest you?
> Legally contrived "abortion
> equivalency" to compensate for a man's lack of a womb, is pretty much
> absurd.
Is it any more absurd than mountains of bloody aborted children sacrificed
on the altar of feminism?
> Imagine a man seeing his child and pointing out to his friends,
> "See that kid over there? She's my abortion!" We could have thousands
and
> millions of "abortions" running around.
They'd be running, living, breathing.... which some people might argue is
preferable to the style of abortion legally-available to women.
> Now imagine what the poor kid will
> think about that. "I'm an abortion." I have to ask you....Do you
*really*
> and *truly* want to see that happening?
I don't, but so what? It's better than dead, don't you think? And you
*really* and *truly* want the "dead" option (as long as it is women making
that decision, of course).
> As for adoptions, my personal take: if the mother doesn't want to keep
it,
> the child should be offered *first* to the biological father.
If she names him, then maybe that could happen. There's no requirement for
it. Feel free to lobby your local politician. Good luck, and try not to end
up on any blacklist of radicals.
> If he doesn't
> want it, perhaps any other member of either side of the families could
take
> it. If none of them want it, let the child be adopted by strangers.
Lobby for that. It's a step in the right direction to acknowledge that
fathers might actually have some rights that are secondary only to the
mother's, but superior to feminist myths and abusive government bureaucrats.
> So, if men want to come forward to adopt children that women don't want,
by
> all means, I support your right to bring your case before the adoption
> courts!
The subject under discussion was temination of parental obligations, not
petitioning for them. Nice try at changing the subject though. A bit
uncomfortable for a feminist, is it?
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
> All of that is a good idea, but none of it is terribly persuasive to
> Canadian courts. Perhaps it works better for whites than for niggers, more
> because they are white than because of any virtue inherent in the
documents.
Well...there's a double-wammy: anti-male and anti-black. You've got one
hell of an uphill battle. Justice is supposed to be *blind*...unprejudiced,
balanced and fair. If you want to get rid of corrupt judges, you'll get no
argument from me there. It's something I'm concerned about, too.
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
> > I missed a 4th choice:
> >
> > 4. Get neutered!
> Bimballi wrote:
> From a political/legal perspective, that one does not work for men.
Why not? Millions of men have chosen neutering when they decided they
didn't want more kids, or any, for that matter. Even a married man doesn't
need his wife's approval for his own neutering. He can make that decision
for himself! Imagine that! You do indeed have the freedom to be neutered.
And that is a *valid* reproductive choice. However, if you are a young man,
a physician *may* try to discourage you. But, given the success rate of
reversing the neutering, the young man might not get as much resistence for
his choice if he's quite adament about it.
>It might
> not work for women either, although the actual risk is much less.
Nowadays, tubal ligations are not as risky as they used to be.
Unfortunately, they cannot be reversed as a vasectomy can be. And again, if
a woman is adament about wanting a sterilization, she can indeed find a
physician who will do it.
>
>
> > So, here's a recap of options men could choose if they do not wish to be
> > parents:
> >
> > Preventative measures:
> > 1. Avoid sex with women.
> > 2. Get neutered
>
> From a legal perspective, neither of those two are effective.
Why not? If a man doesn't want kids, there's nothing to stop him from
getting a vasectomy. For many men this has been a great solution. There's
no worry about a condom breaking. Or, worrying about his partner's
birth-control methods, whether they are used or not. A vasectomy is a great
way to ensure your seeds cannot be misused and/or misappropriated.
>Men who are
> not biological fathers can be, and have been, ordered to accept unwanted
> parental responsibilities.
Yes. I'm aware of a case where a divorced man is forced to pay for another
man's child, despite the fact the biological father is already paying
support. I call it double-dipping. And I think that is *unfair!* The
non-bio father had been prevented from adopting the child because the
bio-dad refused to relinquish the child. Yet, because the non-bio father
did indeed live with the child for a number of years and acted in a fatherly
capacity, the courts decided he should pay too!
I'm also aware of a case where the divorced mom attempted to gain support
payments from a non-bio man who never even lived with those children. Her
appeal for support failed. Thank goodness! I can't imagine the outfall had
she won her case. Sheez...any woman could have then targetted any man on
the street and hauled him to court for support. LOL...I know this woman,
and, yes...I think she's nuts! ;-) Unfortunately, she's not nutty enough
to have her children taken from her. Oh well...
Her case was a bloody waste of tax-payers money, though. <sigh> I can't
believe a lawyer was even willing to attempt her case.
>> Heidi wrote:
> > Post-coital measures to that "accidentally" conceived child:
> > 1. Run away and hide and hope not to get caught.
> > 2. Kill yourself.
> Bimballi wrote:
> #1 is not the sort of choice we are referring to. What we are referring to
> are *legal* choices. Choices that a person is *at liberty* to make,
without
> fear of legal repercussions.
I know. But it *is* still a choice. We can choose to do things legally or
illegally. If we choose illegal, we have to be prepared for the
consequences.
>
> #2 is also illegal, and is a stupid response - even for a feminist.
Who's going to charge the successful suicide with a crime? LOL...Would
anyone care to arrest a corpse and haul it into court? Sheez! Anyway,
it's not something I would advocate or recommend to anyone, but it *is*
still a choice!
(snip)
>> Heidi wrote re: women's choices:
> > Post-coital measures to that "accidentally" conceived child:
> > 1. Abort the embryo or foetus.
>
> Yes, that is a legal choice available to women, but not a legal choice for
> any man.
No, a man cannot yet get pregnant. Perhaps in the future when genetic
engineering becomes popular, men *may* choose to design their bodies to
contain wombs. Scientists have already experimented on a male gorilla. The
procedure showed some progress toward that end. It could be that in some
future world, a pregnant man can opt for an abortion.
>He can neither prevent nor cause, her unilateral decision will be
> forced on him by the law.
No...her body, her choice. Not much you can do about that. The right of
the woman supercedes the right of an embryo or a mid-term foetus. Late term
foetii do have some limited rights and are not aborted unless for some
extreme medical reasons. Fortunately those heartwrenching decisions are
very very rare. Imagine looking forward to a baby only to find out in the
7th month it died in the womb. <sigh>
(snip)
> Bimballi wrote:
> Regardless of all that, my original claim remains unchallenged: Men do not
> have any legal unilateral choices regarding termination of parental
> responsibilities, while women have several.
Yes. Did you read my post re: "I'm My Father's Abortion?" How many
embryos do you see running around to make claims like that?
Take care,
Heidi
the city of lost socilaists
freaks.
The fact is you fucking socialist feminist, just don't like men having any
rights with children or not...
Oh you missed Dr, Hide, NUMBER 6....one called in a legal term that could be
used....
"A PAPER ABORTION" just for the man, imaged that, bitch. Your all a bunch of
fucking feminist idiots.
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Jashb.56034$9l5.43491@pd7tw2no...
the city of lost socilaists
>
> >"MediiEvil_the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling"
> <MediiEvil@the_legacy_of_socialist.schooling..cagv.666> wrote in message
> news:fhlhb.2255$XS4.1121@edtnps84...
> (snip)
>
> >MediiEvil wrote:
> > Oh please, use your head, if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have
had
> > any,
>
> Agreed!
>
> > Oh and by the way you are not a parent
> > in the sense you think, the state is the parent, you have no rights with
> > your children, you have only reasonability's.
>
> Well, actually, the State doesn't own the kids. The children belong to
> themselves.
Bullshit, you socilaist feminist types have threw the years grant the
government absolute power over your lives, and you have agreed to those
terms, therefore the state does indeed own your children and can and does
remove children without just cause...Your socilaist feminist world..
Hubby and I are only the temporary custodians, even though they
> are of our flesh and blood. They're our offspring...and once sprung off
> they belong to themselves. And, yes, we have all the responsibility and
> none of the rights. My children have rights
Children have no right in Canada, that is a socilaist feminist misconception
that you think is true. The state own the children.
of which I am keenly cognizant.
> I support their rights and make sure that no-one else infringes on their
> right to live within a family, have access to an education, medical care,
> food, shelter and clothing.
That is another false socilaist feminist belief, the state can and does
decide what you do with your children, and tell you how your children will
live as well as yourself, if you do not live up to those terms then the
state will take your children without just cause...It is called pati paren's
A prime example common law-based parens patriae jurisdiction. As it is
children are property of the state.
Government agent, cops
confront homeschoolers
Come to family's house demanding children submit to mandated testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Posted: June 14, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Two homeschooled teen-agers in Waltham, Mass., have consistently refused to
take a mandatory assessment test demanded by the local school district, and
their parents have backed up the kids' decision - a six-year stance that
culminated in an early-morning standoff with government and law-enforcement
officials outside their home.
According to a report in the MetroWest Daily News, social workers from the
Department of Social Services and police officers confronted the family at
7:45 a.m. Thursday, demanding that George, 15, and Nyssa, 13, complete a
standardized test.
As they have done in the past, the children refused to go, even though the
government now has legal custody of them.
"There have been threats all along. Most families fall to that bullying by
the state and the legal system," dad George Bryant Sr. told the paper. "But
this has been a six-year battle between the Waltham Public Schools and our
family over who is in control of the education of our children. In the end,
the law of this state will protect us."
DSS worker Susan Etscovitz tried to use the fact that the Bryants
technically don't have custody of their own children in her plea.
"We have legal custody of the children and we will do with them as we see
fit," Etscovitz told the Bryants, according to the Daily News. "They are
minors and they do what we tell them to do."
Four police officers were also at the scene and attempted to coax the
Bryants into complying with the DSS worker.
One of the law-enforcement officers told the paper: "We will not physically
remove the children."
According to the report, the Bryants contend that no government entity has
the legal right to force their children to take standardized tests, even
though DSS workers have threatened to take their children from them.
The Waltham Public School's homeschooling policy requires parents to file
educational plans and develop a grading system for their home-educated
children. The Bryants have refused to do so.
"We do not believe in assessing our children based on a number or letter.
Their education process is their personal intellectual property," Bryant
told the Daily News.
"We don't want to take the test. We have taken them before and I don't think
they are a fair assessment of what we know," said Nyssa Bryant. "And no one
from DSS has ever asked us what we think."
DSS made it clear it leaves open the option of removing the children from
their home.
"No one wants these children to be put in foster homes. The best course of
action would be for (the Bryants) to instruct the children to take the
test," Etscovitz told the paper.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33077
Just as murderers with severe mental health problems can be forced to take
drugs, you are mistaken about this, that is why children can be removed from
fathers and why the courts are bias and made for mothers only in family
court.
I use the UN declaration of rights for children
> as my guide.
Doesn't exist in the courts of Canada for fathers, maybe you mothers but
then the sicalist feminist thinking was made that way.
They are their own little persons who belong to themselves,
> not to me, not to their father, not to the state, nor any other
care-giver.
Wrong the state owns your children you socilaist feminist deeded it that way
for way to long to have it change now.
>
> Heidi
>
>
>
>
the city of lost socilaists
> "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >
> > Bimballi, it matters not one whit what various courtroom judges may
decide
> > in any given situation re: "ownership" of children. Canada has agreed
to
> > the UN's Children's Charter. *All* decisions regarding the welfare of
> > children, *must* be measured against what that Charter states. If the
> > courts do not take those into consideration, they *must* be challenged
on
> > their decisions. I've made it a personal commitment to my own children
> that
> > if anyone messes with their rights, I'd be their strongest, most vocal
and
> > most visceral advocate!
A Fact made the the appeal courts in BC
"You have all these rights until legislation interferes with them.
Governments have the right to create laws that infringe on certain rights"
This inconceivable statement was made by Justice Catherine Ryan January 29,
2003 - BC Court of Appeal
This also includes your children and your so called rights.
The UN can't change that fact.....
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
>
> >"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> wrote in message news:4Dqhb.57625$pl3.35959@pd7tw3no...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> > > I missed a 4th choice:
> > >
> > > 4. Get neutered!
>
> > Bimballi wrote:
> > From a political/legal perspective, that one does not work for men.
>
> Why not?
Because the law assumes that the husband is the father, and will force him
to pay, regardless of any biological parentage details.
> Millions of men have chosen neutering when they decided they
> didn't want more kids, or any, for that matter. Even a married man
doesn't
> need his wife's approval for his own neutering. He can make that decision
> for himself! Imagine that! You do indeed have the freedom to be
neutered.
> And that is a *valid* reproductive choice. However, if you are a young
man,
> a physician *may* try to discourage you. But, given the success rate of
> reversing the neutering, the young man might not get as much resistence
for
> his choice if he's quite adament about it.
What you seem to be suggesting is that young, intelligent men have
themselves sterilized, to avoid the legal risks created by feminazi-inspired
legislation.
> >It might
> > not work for women either, although the actual risk is much less.
>
> Nowadays, tubal ligations are not as risky as they used to be.
> Unfortunately, they cannot be reversed as a vasectomy can be. And again,
if
> a woman is adament about wanting a sterilization, she can indeed find a
> physician who will do it.
Again, you are suggesting surgical solutions to legal problems. A bit
drastic, and not effective.
> > > So, here's a recap of options men could choose if they do not wish to
be
> > > parents:
> > >
> > > Preventative measures:
> > > 1. Avoid sex with women.
> > > 2. Get neutered
> >
> > From a legal perspective, neither of those two are effective.
>
> Why not? If a man doesn't want kids, there's nothing to stop him from
> getting a vasectomy. For many men this has been a great solution.
There's
> no worry about a condom breaking. Or, worrying about his partner's
> birth-control methods, whether they are used or not. A vasectomy is a
great
> way to ensure your seeds cannot be misused and/or misappropriated.
Ask a lawyer to explain it to you. Biological parentage is largely
irrelevent in family law.
> >Men who are
> > not biological fathers can be, and have been, ordered to accept unwanted
> > parental responsibilities.
>
> Yes. I'm aware of a case where a divorced man is forced to pay for
another
> man's child, despite the fact the biological father is already paying
> support. I call it double-dipping. And I think that is *unfair!*
If you already know about this, then why are you proposing sterilization as
a solution? Connect the dots, you silly person.
> The
> non-bio father had been prevented from adopting the child because the
> bio-dad refused to relinquish the child. Yet, because the non-bio father
> did indeed live with the child for a number of years and acted in a
fatherly
> capacity, the courts decided he should pay too!
>
> I'm also aware of a case where the divorced mom attempted to gain support
> payments from a non-bio man who never even lived with those children. Her
> appeal for support failed. Thank goodness! I can't imagine the outfall
had
> she won her case. Sheez...any woman could have then targetted any man on
> the street and hauled him to court for support. LOL...I know this woman,
> and, yes...I think she's nuts! ;-) Unfortunately, she's not nutty enough
> to have her children taken from her. Oh well...
> Her case was a bloody waste of tax-payers money, though. <sigh> I can't
> believe a lawyer was even willing to attempt her case.
If that is the case I am thinking of, it is being appealed. She may yet win.
> >> Heidi wrote:
> > > Post-coital measures to that "accidentally" conceived child:
> > > 1. Run away and hide and hope not to get caught.
> > > 2. Kill yourself.
>
> > Bimballi wrote:
> > #1 is not the sort of choice we are referring to. What we are referring
to
> > are *legal* choices. Choices that a person is *at liberty* to make,
> without
> > fear of legal repercussions.
>
> I know. But it *is* still a choice. We can choose to do things legally
or
> illegally. If we choose illegal, we have to be prepared for the
> consequences.
The whole point of making things unlawful is to largely remove the element
of choice. The fact that it isn't completely effective is not relevent.
> > #2 is also illegal, and is a stupid response - even for a feminist.
>
> Who's going to charge the successful suicide with a crime? LOL...Would
> anyone care to arrest a corpse and haul it into court? Sheez! Anyway,
> it's not something I would advocate or recommend to anyone, but it *is*
> still a choice!
Get real.
> (snip)
>
> >> Heidi wrote re: women's choices:
> > > Post-coital measures to that "accidentally" conceived child:
> > > 1. Abort the embryo or foetus.
> >
> > Yes, that is a legal choice available to women, but not a legal choice
for
> > any man.
>
> No, a man cannot yet get pregnant. Perhaps in the future when genetic
> engineering becomes popular, men *may* choose to design their bodies to
> contain wombs. Scientists have already experimented on a male gorilla.
The
> procedure showed some progress toward that end. It could be that in some
> future world, a pregnant man can opt for an abortion.
I was not referring to "male pregnancy" or any other speculative idea. The
fact is, a woman may legally choose to abort - but the father has no such
option. He has no (legal) choices, whereas she does.
> >He can neither prevent nor cause, her unilateral decision will be
> > forced on him by the law.
>
> No...her body, her choice. Not much you can do about that. The right of
> the woman supercedes the right of an embryo or a mid-term foetus.
Why? And more to the point, why does everybody else's rights supercede the
rights of the man involved?
> Late term
> foetii do have some limited rights and are not aborted unless for some
> extreme medical reasons. Fortunately those heartwrenching decisions are
> very very rare. Imagine looking forward to a baby only to find out in the
> 7th month it died in the womb. <sigh>
> (snip)
Whatever. Laws vary on that.
> > Bimballi wrote:
> > Regardless of all that, my original claim remains unchallenged: Men do
not
> > have any legal unilateral choices regarding termination of parental
> > responsibilities, while women have several.
>
> Yes. Did you read my post re: "I'm My Father's Abortion?" How many
> embryos do you see running around to make claims like that?
Sorry, that makes no sense.
Heidi Graw
>"the city of lost socilaists" <my.mail.no.way..@....ha.ha.ha.ha.ca> wrote
in message news:bOAhb.8741$XS4.4265@edtnps84...
(snip)
> "A PAPER ABORTION" just for the man, imaged that, bitch.
Indeed, I'm imagining it:
Imagine a family which already has 6 children. Both parents are
working to support this family. The woman gets pregnant again, but the
father exerts his right to paper-abort that 7th child. The wife chooses to
bear this baby. Now what? Does she have to keep it in a seperate room?
Feed it outside of the normal time that the rest of the family sits down at
dinner? Her own wages she earns she could use to buy that 7th child its
food, clothing and other necessities of life. But, how to keep that child
away from contact with the aborting father? The father's right to abort
will certainly bring some interesting dimensions to family life.
Should this couple choose to divorce, the father will be obligated to pay
support for the 6 children he had agreed to, but the 7th one will not be his
concern. So, just imagine how that 7th child might feel in such a family?
His/her siblings would know that child is the father's abortion! How might
the siblings react to this one child? And what about the father? How could
he possibly justify ignoring that child, knowing its lurking somewhere
around the house trying its best to not be anywhere near him!
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>Bimballi wrote:
> Ask a lawyer to explain it to you. Biological parentage is largely
> irrelevent in family law.
...as it should be! How else could a married couple choose to adopt
children if biological parentage is the *only* defining factor that would
allow them to create a family? Thank goodness families are *more* than just
biological connections and that non-biology is recognized in law!
> >Heidi wrote:
> > Yes. I'm aware of a case where a divorced man is forced to pay for
>> another
> > man's child, despite the fact the biological father is already paying
> > support. I call it double-dipping. And I think that is *unfair!*
>Bimballi wrote:
> If you already know about this, then why are you proposing sterilization
as
> a solution? Connect the dots, you silly person.
I'm only proposing it to men who do *not* wish to be fathers. In this
particular case, where the non-bio father is making additional payments to a
child not his own, he accepts the court's reasoning and he also has access
to that non-bio child. Each alternate weekend the child is handed over to
either the bio-dad or the non-bio-dad. The mother gets every weekend off
from her child-rearing duties. The child gets to spend time with his
bio-dad one weekend and his non-bio-dad the next. The summer holidays are
also split between these two supporting fathers. You have to remember that
the non-bio dad had wanted to adopt the child when he had married that
divorced mother. The bio-dad, however, refused to relinquish the child.
So, who am I to argue with that arrangement? Yes, I still consider it
double-dipping, but the parties directly involved have reconcilled
themselves to this arrangement.
> >Heidi wrote:
> > I'm also aware of a case where the divorced mom attempted to gain
support
> > payments from a non-bio man who never even lived with those children.
Her
> > appeal for support failed. Thank goodness! I can't imagine the outfall
> had
> > she won her case. Sheez...any woman could have then targetted any man
on
> > the street and hauled him to court for support. LOL...I know this
woman,
> > and, yes...I think she's nuts! ;-) Unfortunately, she's not nutty
enough
> > to have her children taken from her. Oh well...
> > Her case was a bloody waste of tax-payers money, though. <sigh> I
can't
> > believe a lawyer was even willing to attempt her case.
> Bimballi wrote:
> If that is the case I am thinking of, it is being appealed. She may yet
win.
Does it involve a pair of twins that an air-line pilot had abandoned? The
non-bio dad who, by this time, had already divorced his wife and hadn't
lived with her for years, was being asked to support these children. This
particular appeal had been rejected. Yet, I'm wondering why the air-line
pilot is getting off scot-free.
>Bimballi wrote:
> I was not referring to "male pregnancy" or any other speculative idea. The
> fact is, a woman may legally choose to abort - but the father has no such
> option. He has no (legal) choices, whereas she does.
So, let's consider the consequences of an "equivalent abortion right" (EAR)
for men. At any time during their wife's pregnancy, men could opt for a
paper abortion. The wife, however, chooses to bear the child. So, now
what? She brings the child home from the hospital, supports it from her own
earnings, pays attention to it, but what about the husband? He's
paper-aborted the child! He has completely and utterly rejected that child.
It does not exist for him. So, he ignores the cries, the child playing,
eating and doing whatever children do in the house. When the child falls
and hurts itself, the husband just ignores it. He has paper-aborted that
child, remember? And, the mother hires a babysitter to look after the child
when she goes out, while the husband is home watching t.v. Is this the kind
of family life you truly and really would like to see?
Take care,
Heidi
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
"Chris M. Tyler" <cmt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:788eovk1drqp10pdg...@4ax.com...
> > Imagine a family which already has 6 children.
>
> Why would a working class family have 6 kids in the first place? Who
ultimately makes
> such decision that impacts the family's financial security? Can you say
womb power.
>
> > Both parents are
> > working to support this family.
>
> How much does the baby machine actually work with 6 kids. Women that have
more kids then
> the family can reasonably afford usually do so so they have a seemingly
valid axcuse to
> NOT WORK.
>
> > The woman gets pregnant again, but the
> > father exerts his right to paper-abort that 7th child. The wife
chooses to
> > bear this baby.
More to the point, suppose the man already had a vasectomy and the wife
(through some miracle ;-) finds herself pregnant. Do you really think the
law will let him off the hook paying for the upkeep of someone else's child?
What are his (lawful options - just for you, Heidi) options at that point?
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
> >Bimballi wrote:
> > Ask a lawyer to explain it to you. Biological parentage is largely
> > irrelevent in family law.
>
> ...as it should be! How else could a married couple choose to adopt
> children if biological parentage is the *only* defining factor that would
> allow them to create a family? Thank goodness families are *more* than
just
> biological connections and that non-biology is recognized in law!
And so it is if the woman becomes pregnant by someone other than her
husband. His consent is irrelevent. If you already knew this, then why are
you being so silly about denying that men have no lawful options?
>
> > >Heidi wrote:
> > > Yes. I'm aware of a case where a divorced man is forced to pay for
> >> another
> > > man's child, despite the fact the biological father is already paying
> > > support. I call it double-dipping. And I think that is *unfair!*
>
> >Bimballi wrote:
> > If you already know about this, then why are you proposing sterilization
> as
> > a solution? Connect the dots, you silly person.
>
> I'm only proposing it to men who do *not* wish to be fathers.
This isn't biology class, sweetheart - this is a political ng. From a
political/legislative perspective, vasectomies are not even on the map.
Saddling some man (any man!) with the costs of raising children, is
definitely on the political map.
> In this
> particular case, where the non-bio father is making additional payments to
a
> child not his own, he accepts the court's reasoning and he also has access
> to that non-bio child.
Maybe he accepts the decision, maybe he doesn't. In today's legal climate,
nobody gives a fuck what he accepts.
> Each alternate weekend the child is handed over to
> either the bio-dad or the non-bio-dad. The mother gets every weekend off
> from her child-rearing duties. The child gets to spend time with his
> bio-dad one weekend and his non-bio-dad the next. The summer holidays are
> also split between these two supporting fathers. You have to remember
that
> the non-bio dad had wanted to adopt the child when he had married that
> divorced mother. The bio-dad, however, refused to relinquish the child.
> So, who am I to argue with that arrangement? Yes, I still consider it
> double-dipping, but the parties directly involved have reconcilled
> themselves to this arrangement.
Parties who make their own arrangements do not require any legislation or
court-ordered arrangements. We can dispense with any further discussion of
that subset of the population.
> > > Her case was a bloody waste of tax-payers money, though. <sigh> I
> can't
> > > believe a lawyer was even willing to attempt her case.
>
> > Bimballi wrote:
> > If that is the case I am thinking of, it is being appealed. She may yet
> win.
>
> Does it involve a pair of twins that an air-line pilot had abandoned?
No. I am not familiar with that one.
>The
> non-bio dad who, by this time, had already divorced his wife and hadn't
> lived with her for years, was being asked to support these children. This
> particular appeal had been rejected. Yet, I'm wondering why the air-line
> pilot is getting off scot-free.
Family law is largely a murky area of opinions, prejudices, arbitrary
decisions and hopelessly vague legislation. It always has been. I am
suggesting that we make improvements that respect the rights of all parties
and that conform to the usual principles of Justice. regrettably, the
powerful feminist lobby is sabotaging all efforts at family law reform in
Canada.
> >Bimballi wrote:
> > I was not referring to "male pregnancy" or any other speculative idea.
The
> > fact is, a woman may legally choose to abort - but the father has no
such
> > option. He has no (legal) choices, whereas she does.
>
> So, let's consider the consequences of an "equivalent abortion right"
(EAR)
> for men. At any time during their wife's pregnancy, men could opt for a
> paper abortion. The wife, however, chooses to bear the child. So, now
> what? She brings the child home from the hospital, supports it from her
own
> earnings, pays attention to it, but what about the husband? He's
> paper-aborted the child! He has completely and utterly rejected that
child.
He could, and probably should, divorce her for bearing unwanted children.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership, of sorts... not a system of
enslaving men to the whims of women. Nice theory, I know. ;-)
> It does not exist for him. So, he ignores the cries, the child playing,
> eating and doing whatever children do in the house. When the child falls
> and hurts itself, the husband just ignores it. He has paper-aborted that
> child, remember? And, the mother hires a babysitter to look after the
child
> when she goes out, while the husband is home watching t.v. Is this the
kind
> of family life you truly and really would like to see?
What I "truly and really" like is not at issue. We would all like to see
perfection, but that won't happen. It would be sufficient to have family law
conform to the usual principles of justice, and respect the rights of all
parties concerned.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
I want to get rid of corrupt legislation and replace it with something that
conforms to the principles of justice. Justice should be blind to people's
skin color, sex, etc. That's awfully damn hard for the courts to do when
legislation and government policy is designed to benefit women at the
expense of men. Of course, the politicians will tell you that the
legislation is gender neutral, and it is judicial prejuidice that drives the
anti-father decisions in our courtrooms. And then the judges will be
'encouraged' to attend seminars pushing a pro-feminist anti-men POV and
judges are encouraged by the governemnt to be more sensitive to the special
needs of women in the courts.
The average guy who gets dragged into that minefield does not know what hit
him, or why.
Truth is, the courts and politicians are locked in a mutually-destructive
embrace, each passing the buck to each other, neither with the guts to make
any substantive unilateral improvements. Feminists exploit the situation to
their own benefit, and resist reforms that might diminsish the money they
get for dealing with the collateral damage. Revolution may be required.
the city of lost socilaists
>
> >"the city of lost socilaists" <my.mail.no.way..@....ha.ha.ha.ha.ca> wrote
> in message news:bOAhb.8741$XS4.4265@edtnps84...
> (snip)
>
> > "A PAPER ABORTION" just for the man, imaged that, bitch.
>
> Indeed, I'm imagining it:
>
> Imagine a family which already has 6 children.
What does this have to do with the issue of reproductive rights? Do you even
know what rights are? Are you a total moron? Trying a very obvious straw man
argument?
Or maybe you are suggesting that if a woman has six children it should be
illegal for her to have an abortion? Is this your position? The "half-dozen"
rule of law theory?
Frankly I think your mind has turned to feminist, misandrist, mush..... go
back to watching soap operas.
Heidi Graw
(snip)
> > > "A PAPER ABORTION" just for the man, imaged that, bitch.
> > Heidi wrote:
> > Indeed, I'm imagining it:
> >
> > Imagine a family which already has 6 children.
> Chris wrote:
> Why would a working class family have 6 kids in the first place? Who
ultimately makes
> such decision that impacts the family's financial security? Can you say
womb power.
If hubby chooses to lay his wife, he's assuming 50% of the responsibility
for any pregnancy that may result. And since he cannot force his wife to
have an abortion, he pretty much has to accept *her* decision in this
matter. However, with a paper-abortion document in hand, he can indeed make
a choice for himself. The child is born, and he simply has nothing more to
do with it, even if the child lives in the same house as he.
So, let's look at a situation in which the wife chooses an abortion, but the
husband wishes for the child to be born. Since both husband and wife would
have their own respective equal reproductive rights, he *still* cannot
compel her to bear a child not of her own choosing. The "womb power",
irregardless of a man's right to exercise his own reproductive choice, will
do nothing that would allow a man to compel his wife to do as *he* wills.
But, this is not what I suspect these "equivalent to abortion rights"
advocates want. What they want is to have the power to compel their wives
and/or girlfriends to choose what *he* wants. But it's that damn womb and
the woman's ability to abort, legally or illegally, that keeps getting in
the way. The debate is about power and control over a woman's body and
*not* about equal reproductive rights for *both* genders.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>Bimballi wrote:
> More to the point, suppose the man already had a vasectomy and the wife
> (through some miracle ;-) finds herself pregnant. Do you really think the
> law will let him off the hook paying for the upkeep of someone else's
child?
> What are his (lawful options - just for you, Heidi) options at that point?
In my own personal situation my husband pledged support for me and *any*
children resulting from our marriage.
And when I pointed out to him the loophole about *any* children born as long
as our marriage is legally in force, well...he just shrugged and said, "Oh
well..." The milkman is let off the hook, and hubby assumes responsibility
for that child. That's the risk he was made aware of. It's a risk he chose
to accept and take responsibility for. Is hubby a fool...maybe... ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
> But, this is not what I suspect these "equivalent to abortion rights"
> advocates want. What they want is to have the power to compel their wives
> and/or girlfriends to choose what *he* wants.
Not at all. What they want is a system of justice that places responsibility
with the decision-making party. Not the status quo, where women unilaterally
make the decisions and then men are forced, by law, to accept
responsibility.
> But it's that damn womb and
> the woman's ability to abort, legally or illegally, that keeps getting in
> the way. The debate is about power and control over a woman's body and
> *not* about equal reproductive rights for *both* genders.
The debate is about feminists refusing to advocate that women accept full
responsibility for their decsions, instead of sluffing it off on some poor
schmuck who has no decsions-making authority in any of it. The debate is
about injustice and political gamesmanship, as played by feminists. The
debates is about: Why does no Canadian government ever ask FATHERS what they
think about family law in this country? The debate is about: Why do radical
man-hating feminists have so much power in the federal justice department?
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
>
> >"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> wrote in message news:OSGhb.64135$pl3.26355@pd7tw3no...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >Bimballi wrote:
> > More to the point, suppose the man already had a vasectomy and the wife
> > (through some miracle ;-) finds herself pregnant. Do you really think
the
> > law will let him off the hook paying for the upkeep of someone else's
> child?
> > What are his (lawful options - just for you, Heidi) options at that
point?
>
> In my own personal situation my husband pledged support for me and *any*
> children resulting from our marriage.
Yes, but is that really a child "resulting from the marriage" or resulting
from outside the marriage? Since it results from sex outside the marriage,
what is gained by sticking the cuckolded husband with the tab?
There is a similar situation with young boys (say 13) who are seduced
(raped?) by much older women, and then a baby results. 13 year old boys
aren't really in a position to pay child support, although I suppose you
could garnishee their allowance.
> And when I pointed out to him the loophole about *any* children born as
long
> as our marriage is legally in force, well...he just shrugged and said, "Oh
> well..." The milkman is let off the hook, and hubby assumes
responsibility
> for that child.
If he agrees to those terms, then no biggy. Are you saying that it is
acceptable for the law to force the same thing onto men who are not happy
with it?
> That's the risk he was made aware of. It's a risk he chose
> to accept and take responsibility for. Is hubby a fool...maybe... ;-)
Not at all. many men make exactly that decision, perhaps reluctantly and as
a concession to reality. That does not answer the political/legal question
though. Should all men be compelled, by law, to pay for the upkeep of
children borne by their wives - even if those children are not really the
husband's? Wouldn't that be an injustice, with the law defending a type of
fraud?
That is the status quo, you know, and it is defended vigorously by
feminists. My guess is that they defend it because this entrenched injustice
leads to much strife - and feminists feed on strife and make money on
strife. Especially if the poor cuckold is provoked to violence.
How is this status quo supposed to benefit children?
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
> > In my own personal situation my husband pledged support for me and *any*
> > children resulting from our marriage.
> Bimballi wrote:
> Yes, but is that really a child "resulting from the marriage" or resulting
> from outside the marriage? Since it results from sex outside the marriage,
> what is gained by sticking the cuckolded husband with the tab?
We could apply a philosophical/religious theory: man and woman through
marriage become ONE. They function as ONE unit in all that they do! In
this sense, it is impossible for either the man or the woman to do anything
independent of each other within that bond. He and she take responsibility
for whatever either one does all the time in all things. Even if the
observer sees them acting independently, that *spiritual* tie, that marriage
in all things is acting as ONE. If either one transgresses, both are
responsible.
There was an interesting court case in Canada in the mid-1850's (sorry I
don't have the reference here with me at the moment) in which the court made
the following ruling: a woman complained her husband beat her. She was
seeking a divorce. She appeared with broken bones in a cast and bruises all
over her face. The judge ruled that because they are married and are
considered ONE in the eyes of God, it was impossible for a man to beat
himself. Her case was dismissed.
Of course, nowadays we recognize the individuality of those who are married.
We don't think in terms that they are ONE. We think in terms of individual,
yet bound in ways which can be broken, seperated and differenciated. The
abuse case stated above illustrates the necessity for "individualism" even
within marriage.
> There is a similar situation with young boys (say 13) who are seduced
> (raped?) by much older women, and then a baby results. 13 year old boys
> aren't really in a position to pay child support, although I suppose you
> could garnishee their allowance.
No. The older woman raped the boy. She should have been charged as a sex
offender and sent to jail. The baby should have been taken away from her
and offered to the boy's parents *first.* If they didn't want it, the child
should have been placed out for adoption. I don't condone sex abuse of
children. The woman sexually abused the boy. The judge was wrong.
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>Bimballi wrote:
> Parties who make their own arrangements do not require any legislation or
> court-ordered arrangements.
Exactly.
>We can dispense with any further discussion of
> that subset of the population.
No problem. ;-)
(snip)
> He could, and probably should, divorce her for bearing unwanted children.
But that's not true...the wife wants her pregnancy to continue so she can
have that baby. She wants it, the husband does not. The child is NOT
totally unwanted.
> Marriage is supposed to be a partnership,
Exactly. Yet, we have a couple who vehemently disagrees while the woman is
pregnant!
>of sorts... not a system of
> enslaving men to the whims of women.
And if the man's whim prevails in this case, the women has the option of an
abortion or a divorce. And yet, prior to the pregnancy, neither one was
thinking about divorcing. They had no intention of doing so.
>Nice theory, I know. ;-)
O.k...let's choose a divorce for this pregnant couple. He won't be held up
for child-support. He loses his wife and loses a child he didn't want
anyway...no big deal, eh? Now, what about the assets? 50/50 split? 60/40?
100% of nothing for woman and child if there are no assets? What's the guy
look like? Handsome? Think he'll pick up another chick to screw no
problem? His wife didn't seem to mind the bulging belly, the farting in
bed, and belching at the dinner table. I'm sure there'll be all kinds of
women just dying to pick up this winsome fellow, eh? ;-)
Oh well, carry on....
> It would be sufficient to have family law
> conform to the usual principles of justice, and respect the rights of all
> parties concerned.
The child has rights. We could, however do something really radical...we
could collect "child support taxes", put it in a pot and use it to pay for
all the children that are born to any and all women. No particular
*individual* man or woman would ever have to worry about paying support for
any of their own children. The support is done via the general collective.
We could add CST to the GST, PST, etc. If people are not willing to support
their own kids, maybe we should tax them? The CST respects the right of the
father to disown his kids, the woman doesn't have to worry about her man
coaxing, prodding or otherwise threatening her with "abort or divorce"
options, and the children get the financial support they need.
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>Chris wrote:
>When the little wife backed up her overn night bag to see
> the layer boyfriend for the weekend, I told him to interpret this behavior
as a move from
> the family and that he should immediately change the locks on the door and
get to a lawyer
> to apply for a divorce. He did and retained custody of his 3 year son and
the matrimonial
> home.
Good advice and I'm glad it worked out well for cuckoled husband! ;-) So,
now what about child support payments and visitations with the mother?
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
> > And when I pointed out to him the loophole about *any* children born
as long
> > as our marriage is legally in force, well...he just shrugged and said,
"Oh
> > well..." The milkman is let off the hook, and hubby assumes
responsibility
> > for that child. That's the risk he was made aware of. It's a risk he
chose
> > to accept and take responsibility for. Is hubby a fool...maybe... ;-)
>Chris wrote:
> You already know the asnwer to that. Is it your intention to brag about
dupping dumb
> guys.
I'd suggest you don't insult my husband's intelligence. He'd not in this
forum to defend himself.
>Pretty proud of that are you, but then only a dumb guy would go near you.
Yes, some dumb guys do indeed come to me for a variety of reasons. I also
enjoy the company of highly intelligent men. I don't discriminate against
people based on their intelligence levels. There's something to be learned
from everyone, even the dummies. ;-)
Heidi
the city of lost socilaists
There is a similar situation with young boys (say 13) who are seduced
(raped?) by much older women, and then a baby results. 13 year old boys
aren't really in a position to pay child support, although I suppose you
could garnishee their allowance.
Just one example, their are thousands
http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/franklin.shtml
Young Boy Sex: Women Who Rape
2 March 1999
STATES NEWS SERVICE
Woman Pleads Guilty To Molestation
FRANKLIN, INDIANA -- A Johnson County woman... who was accused of
having sex with a five-year-old boy... has pleaded guilty to child
molesting. Twenty-eight year old Diana F. will be sentenced in May. She
faces up to 50 years in prison.
More stories of sexual abuse by women
a.. - - Babysitters Who Rape - -
b.. - - Little Girls Who Rape - -
c.. - - Women Who Rape Girls - -
d.. - - Women Who Make Pornographic Pictures of Child Sex - -
e.. - - Women Who Rape Men - -
f.. - - Mother-son incest, mother-daughter incest - -
g.. - - Women Who Rape Teenage Boys - -
h.. - - Women Who Rape Young Boys - -
i.. - - Female Teachers Who Rape Their Students - -
j.. - - Female Sex Offenders on the Internet - -
k.. - - Other Women Who Rape - -
l.. Sex at youth prison being investigated.
m.. Mother-son sex: California woman again pregnant by teenage
foster son.
n.. Mother-son sex: Mother marries teenage foster son.
o.. Woman charged with unlawful sexual contact with 14-year-old boy
at church.
p.. Second porn arrest in as many days.
q.. Young boy sex: woman accused of having sex with two young boys.
r.. Sixth-grade teacher faces seven years for sex with boy.
s.. Sixth-grade teacher sentenced for sex with boy.
t.. Teacher pregnant again, apparently by her 14-year-old lover.
u.. Woman pleads guilty to having sex with boy.
v.. Woman guilty in sex case.
w.. Mom allegedly e-mailed nude photos
x.. Mom faces prison in child-sex case.
y.. Woman charged in sexual assault on 12 year old girl.
z.. Teacher charged with sexual abuse.
aa.. Elian Gonzalez: Miami stunned by grandmother's account of
meeting
ab.. Woman sentenced for corruption of minor.
ac.. Dad shows Zero-Tolerance for pedo rapist
ad.. Woman charged with raping boy for five years.
ae.. Felton woman arrested again on sex charges.
af.. Young boy sex: Woman charged with raping boy.
ag.. Coach pregnant in sex case.
ah.. Woman charged with criminal deviate conduct, robbery and sexual
battery for allegedly attacking two 18-year-old women in an alley.
ai.. Teacher-Student Sex: Woman charged with raping teen.
aj.. Woman arraigned on three counts of statutory rape.
ak.. Woman allegedly had affair with student.
al.. Woman arrested on charges that she sexually abused two young
boys and took pornographic pictures.
am.. Woman held without bail on charges she forced 2-year-old child
to perform oral sex.
an.. More and more parents using hidden cameras.
ao.. Fathers Hotline reports mother-son sex, mother-daughter sex
complaints by fathers wanting custody.
ap.. Woman sentenced to life in prison for sex with her son.
aq.. Mom faces prison in child-sex case.
ar.. Woman accused of having sex with boy
as.. N. Carolina stepmon sentenced, gives birth to child fathered by
stepson, 14.
at.. Woman sentenced for sex with boy.
au.. Woman allegedly had affair with student.
av.. Woman charged with abuse.
aw.. Woman babysitter convicted.
ax.. Mentor woman jailed while appealing conviction.
ay.. Cyber-Sex seducer gets jail time
az.. Woman sentenced for engaging in sexual intercourse with boy of
13.
ba.. Ex-teacher leaving to await appeal.
bb.. Woman alleges rape, but is found guilty of sex with boy of
fifteen.
bc.. Pregnant grandmother held on teen sex charges.
bd.. More stories of sexual abuse by women.
be.. Woman arrested for alleged sex with 6- year-old boy.
bf.. Female teachers accused of having sex with students.
bg.. Librarian indicted for molesting a 13-year-old girl.
bh.. Woman charged with sexual assault on 9-year-old boy.
bi.. School fund-raiser faces trial.
bj.. Pasco woman guilty of teen rape.
bk.. Woman charged with raping boy for three years.
bl.. Female sex offender gets shock probation.
bm.. Woman sentenced for sexually assaulting nephew.
bn.. 12-year-old Pontiac girl charged with rape of younger brother
bo.. Woman jailed for sex with boy.
bp.. Woman jailed for sex with boy -part 2
bq.. PTA pres held for grad party sex.
br.. 22-year-old woman allegedly having sex with 16 and 17 year old
students.
bs.. Grandmother arrested for rape.
bt.. Woman sentenced in sex-abuse case.
bu.. Woman of seventeen traps police in reverse sex sting.
bv.. Elderly woman allegedly rapes boy for 3 years.
bw.. Another child has been charged in an alleged juvenile sex ring.
bx.. Teen sex: Wife caught in act with teen boy.
by.. 28-year-old Michigan woman and 13-year-old boy claim they love
each other and want to marry.
bz.. Female Sex Offenders: Women Who Rape.
ca.. Molesting teacher is sentenced.
cb.. Woman admits having sex with teen boy.
cc.. Woman charged again in sex case.
cd.. Woman accuses boy of rape, but gets 9 years for child
molestation.
ce.. Woman denied appeal of 20 year sentence.
cf.. Woman convicted of raping man.
cg.. Woman reports rape to police, but is then charged in rape of
boy, 12.
ch.. Mother gets 10 years for sex with son, 8 and nephew, 11.
ci.. Prosecutors say teacher seduced teenage boys.
cj.. Mother of five charged in teen sex case.
ck.. Megan's Law applies to women as well as male sex offenders.
cl.. Girl charged with first-degree rape and sexual assault on boy.
cm.. Woman charged with rape of her 13 year old brother.
cn.. Woman sentenced to probation for sex with student.
Heidi Graw
>
> Just one example, their are thousands
>
> http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/franklin.shtml
>
> Young Boy Sex: Women Who Rape
> 2 March 1999
> STATES NEWS SERVICE
> Woman Pleads Guilty To Molestation
> FRANKLIN, INDIANA -- A Johnson County woman... who was accused of
> having sex with a five-year-old boy... has pleaded guilty to child
> molesting. Twenty-eight year old Diana F. will be sentenced in May. She
> faces up to 50 years in prison.
Women caught, charged and sentenced. The system seems to be working. Does
that upset you?
Kind a puts a crimp on your claim that women are allowed to get away with
misdeeds.
Take care,
Heidi
Les Griswold
>>"Chris M. Tyler" <cmt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:788eovk1drqp10pdg...@4ax.com...
>
> (snip)
>
>> > > "A PAPER ABORTION" just for the man, imaged that, bitch.
>
>> > Heidi wrote:
>> > Indeed, I'm imagining it:
>> >
>> > Imagine a family which already has 6 children.
>
>> Chris wrote:
>> Why would a working class family have 6 kids in the first place? Who
> ultimately makes
>> such decision that impacts the family's financial security? Can you say
> womb power.
>
> If hubby chooses to lay his wife, he's assuming 50% of the responsibility
> for any pregnancy that may result. And since he cannot force his wife to
> have an abortion, he pretty much has to accept *her* decision in this
> matter. However, with a paper-abortion document in hand, he can indeed make
> a choice for himself. The child is born, and he simply has nothing more to
> do with it, even if the child lives in the same house as he.
Plato once said that any legislation that goes too far against human
values, won't last very long.
Try to tell me that a nonsociopathic father won't care for his child.
Les!
the city of lost socilaists
Mrs. H, if you call 2 months or house arrest working compaired to the same
crimes where men get longer sententes and spend years in jail, or women who
murder the men folks and get not a day in jail, then your thinking is not
sound...There are many cases to back that up...Very few women see long terms
of jail...
>
> Take care,
> Heidi
>
>
>
Heidi Graw
> You keep missing the point Heidi, which is this woman even pregnant when
her and the
> husband haven't agrreed on having a child or more children.
Gee, Chris, do you think if one or the other doesn't want anymore kids, the
one *not* wanting them might choose to get neutered? No accidental
pregnancy could result in such cases.
> Women like you are always trying to have your cake
> and eat it too.
...like having worry free sex with my own husband? Imagine that.
Heehehehhe sex for fun! How positively sinful! LOL No consequences to
worry about.
> Stop contoling your man and
> manipulating
Oh you can be quite sure that hubby is a very willing participant in all we
do as a married couple. ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>"Les Griswold" <eg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bm9j69$pev$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
(snip)
> Try to tell me that a nonsociopathic father won't care for his child.
It's not the *non*sociopathic fathers and mothers we have to worry about....
It's the sociopaths of either gender, diagnosed and/or undiagnosed, who
create so much trouble. Sane, reasonable and rational people can indeed
manage to reconcile their differences. But, one only needs to read these
newsgroups to discover there are far too many belligerent, hostile and
emotionally unstable people in this world. Oh well...we just have to muddle
our way through the best way be can. ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
Isn't that hypothetical "spritual tie" broken by adultery and whatever fraud
is necessary to saddle a man with legal bondage to someone else's child?
> There was an interesting court case in Canada in the mid-1850's (sorry I
> don't have the reference here with me at the moment) in which the court
made
> the following ruling: a woman complained her husband beat her. She was
> seeking a divorce. She appeared with broken bones in a cast and bruises
all
> over her face. The judge ruled that because they are married and are
> considered ONE in the eyes of God, it was impossible for a man to beat
> himself. Her case was dismissed.
You want the state to accept your "spritual tie" argument and repeal the
laws forbidding wife-beating???
> Of course, nowadays we recognize the individuality of those who are
married.
> We don't think in terms that they are ONE. We think in terms of
individual,
> yet bound in ways which can be broken, seperated and differenciated. The
> abuse case stated above illustrates the necessity for "individualism" even
> within marriage.
Which brings us back to the question of laws that force a man to pay for
children that his wife conceives in adulterous relationships. That is the
effect of implementing feminist mythology in law, and reform is vigorously
opposed by feminists. This is but one of many injustices defended by
feminists in collusion with government officials..
> > There is a similar situation with young boys (say 13) who are seduced
> > (raped?) by much older women, and then a baby results. 13 year old boys
> > aren't really in a position to pay child support, although I suppose you
> > could garnishee their allowance.
>
> No. The older woman raped the boy. She should have been charged as a sex
> offender and sent to jail. The baby should have been taken away from her
> and offered to the boy's parents *first.* If they didn't want it, the
child
> should have been placed out for adoption. I don't condone sex abuse of
> children. The woman sexually abused the boy. The judge was wrong.
The law requires that the boy pay child support. The judge was not wrong, he
did his job and enforced the law. This is another injustice where reform is
being blocked by feminists.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
> > More to the point, suppose the man already had a vasectomy and the
wife
> > (through some miracle ;-) finds herself pregnant. Do you really think
the
> > law will let him off the hook paying for the upkeep of someone else's
child?
> > What are his (lawful options - just for you, Heidi) options at that
point?
> >
>
> At that point he should file for divorce, here one goes again go to get
screwed one way or
> the other.
Probably, but the situation gets a bit trickier if he already has children
with this woman. What happens to them? It's not like the custody decision
will be affected any by her adultery. The husband will get shafted, and then
be forced to pay her. If he's smart, he'll stay married and keep his mouth
shut and do as he is told.
> One paper he will not have to support the child that is not his...
There is no guarantee of that. Judges can, and do, force men to pay child
support for children they did not father. Especially if they were married to
the mother.
> , but her and
> her lawyer will get the amount of money they want. Who is children are is
really just
> semantics end the end. One thing is for sue though, he deserve a better
woman and she
> does not deserve this man. Leave immediatley and take the children that
are yours with
> you when you do so.
NO! Do not ever advise a man to take his children, it will prejudice the
courts against him and could result in a kidnapping charge.
> Especially if she is still see the other guy. I advice a friend to
> do that and it work for him. When the little wife backed up her overn
night bag to see
> the layer boyfriend for the weekend, I told him to interpret this behavior
as a move from
> the family and that he should immediately change the locks on the door and
get to a lawyer
> to apply for a divorce. He did and retained custody of his 3 year son and
the matrimonial
> home.
Yes. That is the smart move. Stay put in the family home, give her as much
"freedom" as she wants, and change the locks at the first opportunity.
*Immediately* file for divorce based on adultery and child custody based on
abandonment. Do not leave the famly home unless ordered out by a court, or
dragged out by police.
The law is stacked against fathers, and he who hesitates is lost. Nice guys
finish dead.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
That's true. I know a man who was sentenced to 4 years for rape. He never
did force sex with the woman. I'm not saying that what he did was right, or
that he should not have been punished, but 4 years jail for what was
arguably only a stupid drunken act - seems a bit much. Especially in
comparison to the sentences handed to women for actual rape of minor boys.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
You are mistaken. I agree there are sociopaths, but so few as to be
insignificant. It is a legal system that rewards sociopathic behaviour that
is a problem worth addressing. Feminists will do anything to distract from
this problem, because they benefit from it.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
You're kidding, right? The highest per capita child support defaulters are
non-custodial mothers. The reasons should be obvious.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
> > Not at all. What they want is a system of justice that places
responsibility
> > with the decision-making party. Not the status quo, where women
unilaterally
> > make the decisions and then men are forced, by law, to accept
> > responsibility.
>
> God helps those that help themselves. Men really got to give their heads
a shake. Most
> men would never approach a business deal with such reckless abandon as
they to with women.
> It's now wonder and laugh that we think with are dicks. BUT, when men
wise up and quit
> doing the predictable shit, women are fucked. They only have one
manipulative game plan
> with no plan "B" in how to deal with a guy that see right through her.
Don't get me wrong
> I don't think all women are like this, but many are and judging form
Heidi's attitudes and
> thinking she is very much one of those women.
People are what they are, and they do what they do. We will not change human
nature any time soon. There are good men, bad men, good women and bad women,
all in equal measure.
What we can do and should do, is reform the justice system in ways that
discourage bad behaviour, rather than rewarding it. Regrettably, feminists
oppose such reforms.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
> > Marriage is supposed to be a partnership,
>
> Exactly. Yet, we have a couple who vehemently disagrees while the woman
is
> pregnant!
Such fundamental disagreements will lead to dissolution of partnerships.
> >of sorts... not a system of
> > enslaving men to the whims of women.
>
> And if the man's whim prevails in this case, the women has the option of
an
> abortion or a divorce. And yet, prior to the pregnancy, neither one was
> thinking about divorcing. They had no intention of doing so.
>
> >Nice theory, I know. ;-)
>
> O.k...let's choose a divorce for this pregnant couple. He won't be held
up
> for child-support.
On what planet?
> He loses his wife and loses a child he didn't want
> anyway...no big deal, eh? Now, what about the assets? 50/50 split?
60/40?
> 100% of nothing for woman and child if there are no assets? What's the
guy
> look like? Handsome? Think he'll pick up another chick to screw no
> problem? His wife didn't seem to mind the bulging belly, the farting in
> bed, and belching at the dinner table. I'm sure there'll be all kinds of
> women just dying to pick up this winsome fellow, eh? ;-)
None of that is a political or legal issue.
> Oh well, carry on....
Sure... on topic would be nice.
> > It would be sufficient to have family law
> > conform to the usual principles of justice, and respect the rights of
all
> > parties concerned.
>
> The child has rights.
Okay, children have rights.
Do mothers have right?
Do fathers have rights?
If so, what are those rights?
> We could, however do something really radical...we
> could collect "child support taxes", put it in a pot and use it to pay for
> all the children that are born to any and all women. No particular
> *individual* man or woman would ever have to worry about paying support
for
> any of their own children.
Ohhhhh... you are a socialist-feminist. That explains your chronic
silliness.
> The support is done via the general collective.
> We could add CST to the GST, PST, etc. If people are not willing to
support
> their own kids, maybe we should tax them? The CST respects the right of
the
> father to disown his kids, the woman doesn't have to worry about her man
> coaxing, prodding or otherwise threatening her with "abort or divorce"
> options, and the children get the financial support they need.
So, the state not only owns your children but it also feeds them. Why don't
women just marry the government? It would add clarity to the situation.
the city of lost socilaists
Very True it like what the status of women have promoted in there male
bashing report and hit list that the Liberal Government funded to promote
this feminist stupidity.
>
>
>
David Deilley
> Very True it like what the status of women have promoted in there male
> bashing report and hit list that the Liberal Government funded to promote
> this feminist stupidity.
Good boy!
You finally got it right!
the city of lost socilaists
"David Deilley" <integ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F8%hb.71939$6C4.39091@pd7tw1no...
Does your socialist stupidity follow you everywhere your socialist brain
farts go, or you just practicing for the up coming idiot award for socialist
feminist spouting their stupidity.
>
>
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>Bimballi wrote:
> You want the state to accept your "spritual tie" argument and repeal the
> laws forbidding wife-beating???
Of course not! See next that I had written:
>> The
> > abuse case stated above illustrates the necessity for "individualism"
even
> > within marriage.
> Bimballi wrote:
> Which brings us back to the question of laws that force a man to pay for
> children that his wife conceives in adulterous relationships. That is the
> effect of implementing feminist mythology in law, and reform is vigorously
> opposed by feminists. This is but one of many injustices defended by
> feminists in collusion with government officials..
There are loads of instances where I don't agree with various judgements,
laws, and punishments. Yet, what I'm finding is that those who are *not
directly* affected, or involved, or either don't care, will not put much
effort into making changes, even if they do not agree with certain things.
What we do see is that those with time, money and extra energy on either
side of an issue will make their opinions known. It's a system of battling
*extremes.* And somehow, the silent majority picks its way through this
conflict to act quietly and purposefully on their own.
> > > There is a similar situation with young boys (say 13) who are seduced
> > > (raped?) by much older women, and then a baby results. 13 year old
boys
> > > aren't really in a position to pay child support, although I suppose
you
> > > could garnishee their allowance.
> >Heidi had written:
> > No. The older woman raped the boy. She should have been charged as a
sex
> > offender and sent to jail. The baby should have been taken away from
her
> > and offered to the boy's parents *first.* If they didn't want it, the
> child
> > should have been placed out for adoption. I don't condone sex abuse of
> > children. The woman sexually abused the boy. The judge was wrong.
> Bimballi wrote:
> The law requires that the boy pay child support. The judge was not wrong,
he
> did his job and enforced the law. This is another injustice where reform
is
> being blocked by feminists.
And in this case, the public was made aware. It happened in the USA. I'm
pretty sure the vast majority of the American population were appalled to
hear of it. Yet, this silent majority chose *not* to *do* anything about
it. So, now, I'm here in B.C. Canada and you want me to involve myself in
rectifying this unjust situation. On my own, I can afford to write a
letter. I can indeed find those 30 minutes out of my busy schedule to do
just that. But what will that do? What impact will it have? Give me a
constructive and realistic suggestion as to how *I*, as an individual, far
removed and not even a citizen of that particular country, and no personal
vested interest in the case, how can I get the ball rolling to change US
law?
This is the ongoing problem that advocates face..."How to motivate the
masses?" How to get enough people to support your cause? How many are
willing to toss money into the pot for any particular issue that is of
concern to them? It costs money to lobby. The average working person can
barely made ends meet. They have neither the time nor the energy, nor the
vested interest. So, we end up with few on either side of an issue being
extremely vocal. Some advocates actually count on the masses *not* doing
anything! It works in their favor to have a lethargic and apathetic mass
who will not stand in their way when they push a particular agenda. It's
only when people are personally and directly "hit", that they will respond.
So, it seems to me, not enough are personally concerned about judicial or
legal wrongs. Things happen to *others*...it's *their* problem. So, they
don't involve themselves, they don't speak out, they don't do anything about
it, and just carry on doing their own thing. Developing a social conscience
is also discouraged. Anyone who appears to have one is considered a
villain. Oh well...
Carrying on, doing my own thing, my own way, to the extend that I can afford
and commit time and money towards. ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>Bimballi advises:
> Stay put in the family home, give her
...or him.
>as much
> "freedom" as she wants,
...or he,
>and change the locks at the first opportunity.
Yes.
> *Immediately* file for divorce based on adultery and child custody based
on
> abandonment.
Indeed. And if *he* attempts to kidnap the children, befriend his enemies.
Belligerent, abusive and adulterous men tend to have loads of enemies who
are just itching for a chance to work him over. Merely his enemies being
"present" and within your sphere works to deter him from further action. No
violent actions necessary. No laws need to be broken! His enemies will
feel gratification merely stopping him from exerting *his* will and it won't
cost you a thing. Make use of all freely available security measures that
you can take to protect yourself and your children.
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
> So, the state not only owns your children but it also feeds them.
Without people, the state does not exist. We can feed children
collectively, or individually. The system is set up in a way that if the
individual cannot do it on his/her own, the collective kicks in and helps
out.
>Why don't
> women just marry the government?
Without people, government does not exist. The type of government we have
is dependent entirely on human activity. If radical feminists have taken
over, it's only because they were *active.* They came forward and actually
did something. If you don't like it, then *act*, stop yer whining and
*act.* There are numerous ways you can do that peacefully and
constructively. You can also do it using few words, "Yea or Nay."
Take care,
Heidi
the city of lost socilaists
Sound like feminist violence issue, is that what your promoting.
>
> Take care,
> Heidi
>
>
>
>
>
the city of lost socilaists
>
> >"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> wrote in message news:fB_hb.71679$6C4.68401@pd7tw1no...
> >
> > So, the state not only owns your children but it also feeds them.
>
> Without people, the state does not exist. We can feed children
> collectively, or individually. The system is set up in a way that if the
> individual cannot do it on his/her own, the collective kicks in and helps
> out.
You mean a socilaist feminist one
>
> >Why don't
> > women just marry the government?
>
> Without people, government does not exist. The type of government we have
> is dependent entirely on human activity. If radical feminists have taken
> over, it's only because they were *active.* They came forward and
actually
> did something. If you don't like it, then *act*, stop yer whining and
> *act.* There are numerous ways you can do that peacefully and
> constructively. You can also do it using few words, "Yea or Nay."
Bullshit, not for men
>
> Take care,
> Heidi
>
>
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
> Sound like feminist violence issue, is that what your promoting.
Nope...just a very effective "block."
I actually used that tactic successfully once when a woman called me from
another province. Her ex-boyfriend, who paid no child support, kidnapped
their daughter. I checked out what local authorities here were permitted to
do that would allow the child to be returned to its mother. Once I
discovered the bureaucratic b.s. involved, I phoned around and checked out
the boyfriend's enemies. I received an enthusiastic response. After I
located the ex-boyfriend, I went with my two thugs stationed at either side
of me to confront this ex-boyfriend. When he saw us, he handed over the
child peacefully, no arguments. No noses were punched, no violent actions
took place. Merely have his two enemies on either side of me was enough to
ensure co-operation. No laws were broken. No violence occured. Yet, there
was an effective "block" put onto the ex. The child was dutifully, promptly
and rightfully returned to her mother. ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
>
>
> >
> > Take care,
> > Heidi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>>If radical feminists have taken
> > over, it's only because they were *active.* They came forward and
> actually
> > did something. If you don't like it, then *act*, stop yer whining and
> > *act.* There are numerous ways you can do that peacefully and
> > constructively. You can also do it using few words, "Yea or Nay."
>lost socialist wrote:
> Bullshit, not for men
Are you accusing men of helplessness? That they're incapable of thought and
action? I'm quite sure the majority of men would disagree with you.
Heidi
Les Griswold
>>"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> wrote in message news:fB_hb.71679$6C4.68401@pd7tw1no...
>>
>
> Without people, government does not exist.
True, but totally irrelevant. Since child custody involves people, there
will always be government in the equation.
Les!
the city of lost socilaists
Ahh I see, you use violent tactic's, that consist of intimidation and
threats of violence...
You wouldn't have gotten far with me on that.
As in the city I leave, your ass and those idiots that you took with you,
would have gotten your asses sent packing right back where you can from. You
are a feminazi idiot.
the city of lost socilaists
No they wouldn't, useless there just plain stupid, the laws and sysytem is
set up to fuck over guys, unless you got connections like I do, only then
can men see justice and fairness, which is why I as a guy have my kids and
the mother doesn't...
>
> Heidi
>
>
David Deilley
> Ahh I see, you use violent tactic's, that consist of intimidation and
> threats of violence...
...said Hansel, while ignoring the violence of kidnapping.
David Deilley
> Ahh I see, you use violent tactic's, that consist of intimidation and
> threats of violence...
... said hypicrite Hansel, while ignoring his own calls for "blood in the
streets."
the city of lost socilaists
David your an idiot. Not only in your socilaist feminist stupidity in
justifying and supporting violent tactic's, that consist of intimidation and
threats of violence... your stupidity also in the area of family law shows
your ignorance that you are stupid.
>
>
the city of lost socilaists
Yes David, I know how to make bombs too...
>
>
David Deilley
>
> "David Deilley" <integ...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Mark Hansel wrote:
> >
> > > Ahh I see, you use violent tactic's, that consist of intimidation and
> > > threats of violence...
> >
> > ... said hypicrite Hansel, while ignoring his own calls for "blood in
the
> > streets."
>
> Yes David, I know how to make bombs too...
I'll bet your favourite bomb is a strap-on.
David Deilley
I'll bet your favourite bomb is a strap-on.
JohnR
I think David should not even respond to your posts. You are losing the votes of
women for the right-wing. You are a prime example of how the extreme right-wing
don't like women.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
Men are quite helpless in any battle with women. Your feminist leaders know
this, and that is why feminism has become the preferred method of
implementing socialism in western nations. Men will not defend themselves,
if they believe the attack to be coming from women. Feindishly clever,
really.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
>
> >"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> wrote in message news:fB_hb.71679$6C4.68401@pd7tw1no...
> >
> > So, the state not only owns your children but it also feeds them.
>
> Without people, the state does not exist. We can feed children
> collectively, or individually. The system is set up in a way that if the
> individual cannot do it on his/her own, the collective kicks in and helps
> out.
Please spare me the marxist-feminist crap. It's so 20th century.
> >Why don't
> > women just marry the government?
>
> Without people, government does not exist.
Government exists. People exist. Why don't women simply marry the
government? These days, all sorts of new 'marriages' are allowed, so why not
have a way for women to marry government? The government already does all
the things that husbands once did.
> The type of government we have
> is dependent entirely on human activity. If radical feminists have taken
> over, it's only because they were *active.*
The same reasoning applies to communist dictators and other criminals. Does
that make it right?
> They came forward and actually
> did something.
They sure did, they nagged and slept their way to power.
> If you don't like it, then *act*, stop yer whining and
> *act.* There are numerous ways you can do that peacefully and
> constructively. You can also do it using few words, "Yea or Nay."
No, that doesn't work. Men can no more act to free themselves from bad laws,
than slaves in the old south could have freed themselves, or Jews have freed
themselves from Nazi laws and then the camps. Your transparent attempt to
blame men for the sins of socialist-feminists, is not fooling anyone.
For the most part, men who cannot abide being enslaved by your system, just
kill themselves. One every 3 or 4 minutes, at last count. Do you hear any
outcry over the horrific rate of men's suicide? No? Neither do I. Nobody
cares if slaves kill themselves, except perhaps that slave's master.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
>
> >"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> wrote in message news:eB_hb.69212$9l5.37887@pd7tw2no...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >Bimballi advises:
> > Stay put in the family home, give her
>
> ...or him.
>
> >as much
> > "freedom" as she wants,
>
> ...or he,
No, that is not necessary. In at least one Canadian province it is possible
(for women) to obtain a restraining order by making a telephone call. Then,
when the husband arrives home from work, he can be arrested for violating
it. In provinces without that service, any lawyer will easily be able to get
a restraining order merely on the woman's claim that she is "afraid". Once
the man is restrained from entering his home, sole custody is effetively
established and becomes very difficult to change. Such options do not exist
for men.
> >and change the locks at the first opportunity.
>
> Yes.
It's optional for women. The police will drag any man off to jail for
violating a restraining order. Jails have good locks.
> > *Immediately* file for divorce based on adultery and child custody based
> on
> > abandonment.
>
> Indeed. And if *he* attempts to kidnap the children, befriend his
enemies.
> Belligerent, abusive and adulterous men tend to have loads of enemies who
> are just itching for a chance to work him over. Merely his enemies being
> "present" and within your sphere works to deter him from further action.
No
> violent actions necessary. No laws need to be broken! His enemies will
> feel gratification merely stopping him from exerting *his* will and it
won't
> cost you a thing. Make use of all freely available security measures that
> you can take to protect yourself and your children.
Another good trick is for a woman to show up at a women's shelter (with the
kids) and claim abuse. She will not be charged with kidnapping.
There is no shortage of those types of government-funded services for women
to use. There are none for men.
David Deilley
wrote
> Please spare me the marxist-feminist crap. It's so 20th century.
That's about a hundred years ahead of you.
the city of lost socilaists
"JohnR" <n...@email.org> wrote in message
news:jt5jovodmdgv1ag4o...@4ax.com...
John-Rabid, what you think, is not important, as you and your socialist
feminist thinking is no longer able to have one ounce of common sense
attached to it.
Therefore your leftwing stupidity needs to take a walk back to the dark side
of socilaist feminist stupidity...where you can act out your great socialist
clowness of stupidity and be laughed at, as the fool who wears only one
shoe. You may remove your other shoe out of your mouth and precede back to
you hole in the ground.
the city of lost socilaists
Wow David, another wet brain fart, how socilaist of you.
>
>
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>Bimballi wrote:
> There is no shortage of those types of government-funded services for
women
> to use. There are none for men.
Yet. But, we have to remember that even services for women began with
privately funded "safe" houses, the sponsor being a woman, mother, other
female relative, a concerned friend, whoever. As this private support could
not meet the demand, lobbying began to bring public awareness. Once that
public awareness happened, and *they* became concerned, it was only a matter
of time before tax money became available.
We have to remember that husband abuse is a fairly recent phenomon that is
being brought to light. It still takes some effort to convince the public
to actually believe this is happening and that it's important enough to take
seriously. In the meantime, there is nothing that would prevent men from
supporting their abused male friends, male relatives, etc. When this
private support happens more often, and resources for these private supports
become strained, and men make their concerns public, perhaps in due time,
the men may indeed get that tax-payer support, too.
It took women over 350 years to lobby for the rights they have now. You
can't expect men's issues to be dealt with all that much quicker. Granted,
it is not much of a consolation for men who are suffering now. But,
attitudes take time to change.
I'll give you another example of how I'm trying to keep boys safe from
abuse. Since I have teenage boys, their friends do come over and tell me
everything that is on their mind. All too often I hear stories of their
abuse...usually abuse inflicted on them by their *hard-line* zero-tolerance
parents. The boys know they can find refuge at my place. They recognize
I'm a safe person for them to talk to. They discuss with me some of their
risky behaviors that they're into. We talk about those risks, the
consequences and how they might make better choices. I also try to give them
tips and tricks on how to cope and communicate with their parents so that
the level of disagreement doesn't quite go as ballistic! I'm also in the
forunate position of having "free" professional advice available to me while
I'm trying to help these teens stay out of trouble with their parents, or
within the community at large.
One thing I have noticed though, with my "adopted" boys: when their parents
become aware that I know the family's "dirty little secrets," they back
off. The level of abuse reduces. They may loathe the fact that their
children have spoken to me, but there's not a heck a lot they can do about
it. If they throw out their boys, they know I'll take them in. If they
punch their boys, they have a refuge to go to. These parents also know I
have means and ways to get outside authorities involved.
Take care,
Heidi
David Deilley
> > "Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
> > wrote
> >
> > > Please spare me the marxist-feminist crap. It's so 20th century.
> >
> > That's about a hundred years ahead of you.
>
> Wow David, another wet brain fart, how socilaist of you.
"Duuuuhhhhh.... yer a socialist brain fart"
Mark Hansel,
pushing his tiny, teeny little envelope
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
> > > >
> > > > So, the state not only owns your children but it also feeds them.
> > >
> > > Without people, the state does not exist. We can feed children
> > > collectively, or individually. The system is set up in a way that if
the
> > > individual cannot do it on his/her own, the collective kicks in and
helps
> > > out.
> >
> That's about a hundred years ahead of you
Well done, Riley! It's good to see you make a "best effort" comment on a
serious subject.
It appears that Hansel is correct, and you are one seriously stupid freak.
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
>
> >"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> wrote in message news:vAhib.79688$pl3.12280@pd7tw3no...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >Bimballi wrote:
> > There is no shortage of those types of government-funded services for
> women
> > to use. There are none for men.
>
> Yet. But, we have to remember that even services for women began with
> privately funded "safe" houses, the sponsor being a woman, mother, other
> female relative, a concerned friend, whoever.
No Ma'am. The shelter movement began in England by Erin Pizzey and in Canada
by Anne C. Cools (now a senator, hated by feminists). They started shelters
that were open to *anyone* with domestic violence problems.
They also noticed that 60% of the women using the shelter were at least as
violent as the men they claimed to be running from.
When you are ready to learn the truth, ask either of those ladies how the
shelter movement was hijacked (their word) by radical man-hating feminists.
Learn your history.
> As this private support could
> not meet the demand, lobbying began to bring public awareness. Once that
> public awareness happened, and *they* became concerned, it was only a
matter
> of time before tax money became available.
Private efforts met all the demand for helping people with domestic violence
problems. Private funding did not, and never will, provide the easy money
that feminists needed to wage war on men. Therefore, backroom political
deals wer made, whereby feminists would influence and manipulate "the
women's vote" such that whichever political party funded them best would get
feminist support, and the others would be labelled "misogynist". It has been
a successful strategy for feminists, the Liberal Party and the NDP. To a
large extent, it has been successful in influencing all political parties
because none can afford to lose "the women's vote".
Men have no similar political lobby, and are thereby politically
disadvantaged wrt the feminists who intend to enslave them.
> We have to remember that husband abuse is a fairly recent phenomon that is
> being brought to light. It still takes some effort to convince the public
> to actually believe this is happening and that it's important enough to
take
> seriously. In the meantime, there is nothing that would prevent men from
> supporting their abused male friends, male relatives, etc. When this
> private support happens more often, and resources for these private
supports
> become strained, and men make their concerns public, perhaps in due time,
> the men may indeed get that tax-payer support, too.
Abused men are the object of scorn, derision and amusement. There will never
be any similar program to help them.
> It took women over 350 years to lobby for the rights they have now. You
> can't expect men's issues to be dealt with all that much quicker.
Granted,
> it is not much of a consolation for men who are suffering now. But,
> attitudes take time to change.
The problems could have been largely resolved several years ago, if not for
active opposition from feminists. Rather than address this issue in a
"equalist" and "humanist" gender-neutral manner, feminists have adopted an
adversarial aproach and now are trying to silence the very few who dare
lobby on behalf of men. This is not a matter of an ignorant populace or
old-fashioned attitudes, this is a matter of deliberate and knowing attacks
by feminists on men.
> I'll give you another example of how I'm trying to keep boys safe from
> abuse. Since I have teenage boys, their friends do come over and tell me
> everything that is on their mind. All too often I hear stories of their
> abuse...usually abuse inflicted on them by their *hard-line*
zero-tolerance
> parents. The boys know they can find refuge at my place. They recognize
> I'm a safe person for them to talk to. They discuss with me some of their
> risky behaviors that they're into. We talk about those risks, the
> consequences and how they might make better choices. I also try to give
them
> tips and tricks on how to cope and communicate with their parents so that
> the level of disagreement doesn't quite go as ballistic! I'm also in the
> forunate position of having "free" professional advice available to me
while
> I'm trying to help these teens stay out of trouble with their parents, or
> within the community at large.
>
> One thing I have noticed though, with my "adopted" boys: when their
parents
> become aware that I know the family's "dirty little secrets," they back
> off. The level of abuse reduces. They may loathe the fact that their
> children have spoken to me, but there's not a heck a lot they can do about
> it. If they throw out their boys, they know I'll take them in. If they
> punch their boys, they have a refuge to go to. These parents also know I
> have means and ways to get outside authorities involved.
That's good of you. I wonder if the parents would be so meek, if it was your
husband offering shelter to their troubled young daughters.... or would
those parents find ways to compel him to shut the fuck up, mind his own
business, and back off. That would not be hard to do, in today's feminist
political climate. The law would be on their side, not your husband's. he
might even have his life ruined by a false accusation, as has happened to
many men.
It's a modern-day witch hunt, and men need to be very cautious to avoid
giving any offense. If they dare speak out about injustice or other social
problems, feminazi radicals (like you and KKKaren) will see that they end up
on blacklists, be 'monitored' and perhaps even face criminal charges for
"hatecrime". It's happening now.
David Deilley
> "David Deilley" <integ...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Bimballi Testicula Castrati" wrote
> > > Please spare me the marxist-feminist crap. It's so 20th century.
>
> > That's about a hundred years ahead of you
>
> Well done, Riley! It's good to see you make a "best effort" comment on a
> serious subject.
>
> It appears that Hansel is correct, and you are one seriously stupid freak.
Let's see... you throw out stupid empty slogans, and you expect me to
respond with intelligent comment.
LOL. You're a little full of your self.
the city of lost socilaists
"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
wrote in message news:1skib.80128$6C4.10652@pd7tw1no...
the city of lost socilaists
>
> "David Deilley" <integ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zDhib.77002$9l5.56648@pd7tw2no...
> > "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:%42ib.70703$9l5.11551@pd7tw2no...
> > >
> > > > >"Bimballi Testicula Castrati" <singa
> > > songofs...@st.peter's.vatican.com>
> > > > wrote in message news:fB_hb.71679$6C4.68401@pd7tw1no...
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the state not only owns your children but it also feeds them.
> > > >
> > > > Without people, the state does not exist. We can feed children
> > > > collectively, or individually. The system is set up in a way that
if
> the
> > > > individual cannot do it on his/her own, the collective kicks in and
> helps
> > > > out.
> > >
> > > Please spare me the marxist-feminist crap. It's so 20th century.
>
> > That's about a hundred years ahead of you
>
> Well done, Riley! It's good to see you make a "best effort" comment on a
> serious subject.
>
> It appears that Hansel is correct, and you are one seriously stupid freak.
David the Stupid thought his stupidity was going somewhere. What a bloody
idiot.
the city of lost socilaists
Don't be embarrassed David, being that your a socialist feminist and very
stupid fuck, could have a way of letting you off the hook for your serious
crimes on humanity with your "Stupidity."
>
>
songofsixpence@st.peter's.vatican.com Bimballi Testicula Castrati
I wrote a nice long post containing intelligent and thoughtful commentary,
and you edited out everything you do not understand, and then lob a stupid
insult. Really, Riley, you are one seriously stupid little freak.
the city of lost socilaists
That's what happens when these socialist feminist idiots like David grow up
with a feminazi mustachio mother, like KKKaren, they make their male son's
stupid...by dropping them on their pointed heads.
David Deilley
>
> That's what happens when these socialist feminist idiots like David grow
up
> with a feminazi mustachio mother, like KKKaren, they make their male son's
> stupid...by dropping them on their pointed heads.
"Duuuuhhhhh... yer sthoopid and ....yer head is pointy."
Mark Hansel,
doing his best
the city of lost socilaists
> Mark Hansel wrote:
> >
> > That's what happens when these socialist feminist idiots like David grow
> up
> > with a feminazi mustachio mother, like KKKaren, they make their male
son's
> > stupid...by dropping them on their pointed heads.
"David Deilley" <integ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k8Bib.82851$9l5.30043@pd7tw2no
>
> "Duuuuhhhhh... yer sthoopid and ....yer head is pointy."
> Mark Hansel,
> doing his best
An example of that stupidity. David it must be hard trying to stuggle with
that stupidity. I feel sorry for you and all.
>
>