Learning from this newsgroup.....
Ron in Michigan
this group, is a further insight into how women think, and, what they want out
of life.
I think that this is important, for men like myself, who truly love women, and,
want to rebuild thier lives after divorce with another woman.
As I have said before, most of the men who bitch in here, and in other groups,
about modern issues, and the behavior of modern women, would not be bitching,
if they did not like/love women, or need them. If we did not need and love
women, most of the issues discussed here would not be important.
I think that some of the men who post here, are trying to meet women in here.
That is why they attack other men who complain about the modern day divorce
racket. I don't blame them at all. Myself, I could less give a shit. I have
other places I meet women.
But, the posts and opinions of the women who post here can be very informative
to a man who is trying to understand how (modern) women think, and, what they
look for in men.
One of the things that I have scoped out, is, that, it would not be a good idea
to discuss with a woman in the real world, some of the things that are
discussed here.
Another thing that I've been thinking about, is that, most women are "child
oriented". Thier children are the center of thier lives.
This is not so with a lot of men, because we are only a visitor in our
children's lives.
From the posts here, and, from talking from women in the real world, thier mind
is more on the children, than the mens' minds are.
I think that this has always been so, because women have always raised the
children, while the men went out to work most of the day. It is even more so
now that we are thrown out of the houshold, and, relegated to the position of
payer of "child support", and occaisonal visitor ( if she lets us see the
kids).
When I was still married, I used to look forward to coming home to my daughter,
and, just before my ex struck out to find that greener grass on the other side
of the fence, I was starting to do little things that my daughter loved, like,
bringing her home things that I would buy on the way home from work, in
addition to taking her places, etc, when I got home. But, now, after being
divorced for four years, sometimes, I forget that I even have a daughter.
This post has turned out piss poor, in my opinion. I don't feel that I have
been able to accuratly convey my ideas and feelings, but, I am going to go
ahead and post it anyway. Maybe this is the result of spending most of the day
working in 90 degree heat,and one hundred percent humidity.
Pamela
when he left. Of all the things I got over, that was the last one to go.
The one I couldn't resolve, I couldn't understand. How could he forget the
kids? Now I realize that for many people that is the course of things.
Maybe the mind protects the heart by forgetting. This has made me sad, Ron.
Ron in Michigan <the1i...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020624033108...@mb-cl.aol.com...
Lisa
"Ron in Michigan" <the1i...@aol.com> wrote...
<snip>
> Another thing that I've been thinking about, is that, most women are
"child
> oriented". Thier children are the center of thier lives.
> This is not so with a lot of men, because we are only a visitor in our
> children's lives. From the posts here, and, from talking from women
> in the real world, thier mind is more on the children, than the mens'
minds are.
Do you think men are bothered by this? IMHO Some men almost seem to resent
the devotion women give to their children. Before children come into a
relationship the husband has the undivided attention of his wife but after
kids come along husbands can often take second fiddle. A woman loves her
children unconditionally and men conditionally.
> I think that this has always been so, because women have always raised the
> children, while the men went out to work most of the day. It is even more
so
> now that we are thrown out of the houshold, and, relegated to the position
of
> payer of "child support", and occaisonal visitor ( if she lets us see the
> kids).
I'm not sure where you live Ron but here in Canada father's are guarenteed
reasonable access to thier children. The mother cannot say you can't see the
kids. Usually it's 60-40 with the mother having 60%. It's important for
father's to remain in their children's lives.
> When I was still married, I used to look forward to coming home to my
daughter,
> and, just before my ex struck out to find that greener grass on the other
side
> of the fence, I was starting to do little things that my daughter loved,
like,
> bringing her home things that I would buy on the way home from work, in
> addition to taking her places, etc, when I got home. But, now, after being
> divorced for four years, sometimes, I forget that I even have a daughter.
Since separating from my stbx he has been spending more time with the
children then he ever did when we were together. I'd like to say he's being
a good dad and wants to remain an important part of their lives but... I
think he's just trying to show me up. Trying to say, "Hey look kids, Daddy
is more fun tham Mommy come live with me." You know what that boils down to?
If he gets the children 50% of the time he pays less child support. I know I
could just be cynical here but he's changed from a man who would spend a few
hours a week with his kids to wanting them all the time and I know he's up
to something and what I think it is, is to retain custody of the children to
spite me for leaving.
Mor...@nospam.com
very frustrating man, is his absolute devotion to our daughter. I am
angry and hurt that he fell in love with another woman, but I know in my heart
that he is a good father. We have both worked very hard to make
this easy for our child. And for her sake and for the sake of their
relationship, father and daughter, I keep my "other life" completely away from
her.
She doesn't need a second daddy. She has a good first one. Even if that means I
don't end up with a second husband.
M
In article <20020624033108...@mb-cl.aol.com>, Ron in Michigan
says...
Denise F. Hayden
answer? Working in the area I work in, I URGE custodial parents to share
equally. I beg them practically.......but it doesn't seem to do a lot of
good. I also BEG the courts to order equal access but again, it doesn't do
much good. So, my question is............how can we make it better? Without
placing blame, calling names etc here in the newsgroup, how do we get the
system changed? Non-custodial parents feel left out and custodial parents
feel threatened when you mention it........how do we make kids NOT a prize?
Denise
--
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
-Shakespeare-
"Janie" <mac_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9237837874...@207.106.93.102...
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 07:31:08 GMT, the1i...@aol.com (Ron in Michigan)
> wrote:
>
> > even more so now that we are thrown out of the houshold, and, relegated
> > to the position of payer of "child support", and occaisonal visitor (
> > if she lets us see the kids).
> > When I was still married, I used to look forward to coming home to my
> > daughter, and, just before my ex struck out to find that greener grass
> > on the other side of the fence, I was starting to do little things that
> > my daughter loved, like, bringing her home things that I would buy on
> > the way home from work, in addition to taking her places, etc, when I
> > got home. But, now, after being divorced for four years, sometimes, I
> > forget that I even have a daughter. This post has turned out piss poor,
> > in my opinion.
>
> This is one of the saddest parts about divorce to me. And the way the
> system has been in the last 50 or however many years, where it is "the way
> things are" to kick fathers out of the lives of their children, as though
> they aren't important to those children. If a father feels the kind of
> heartbreak that you disclose here Ron, for losing those "little moments"
> that make the parent/child relationship so special, intimate, and
> wonderful, imagine then how many more times the heartbreak is for the
> child, who can't verbalize their pain this way, who don't have jobs to go
> to where they can take their minds off the pain. I understand why couples
> decide they can't live together anymore, can't be legally bound to each
> other anymore. I can't ever understand why it is okay to rip apart the
> kind of bond that is shared by a parent and his or her child. I'm so
sorry
> this has happened to you, Ron :-(
>
> > I don't feel that I have been able to accuratly convey
> > my ideas and feelings, but, I am going to go ahead and post it anyway.
> > Maybe this is the result of spending most of the day working in 90
> > degree heat,and one hundred percent humidity.
>
> I think it was a pretty good post. It touched that part of me that is
> usually quiet, from all the noise of my daily life, where the knowledge of
> injustice and pain that exists in the world is a hot coal of outrage.
> Smoldering most of the time. Fanned to flames sometimes. When we are
> LIVING in the middle of the injustice and outrage, how can it NOT be
fanned
> to flames? When we are lucky enough to have momentarily passed through
> injustice and outrage, and are in a relatively calm place in life, I'm
> grateful to know, by posts like yours Ron, that it is still there
> smoldering, even if I don't notice it all the time. I wouldn't like
myself
> very much if I found that it wasn't there at all.
>
> Thanks for posting a reminder.
>
> Janie
>
> --
> The reason why rivers and seas receive the homage of a hundred mountain
> streams is that they keep below them. -- Lao Tse
cor...@newsguy.com
"Denise F. Hayden" <dfha...@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:7aIR8.151$Ye.4...@news.iquest.net...
> My question is.........and this isn't me being sarcastic, but what is the
> answer? Working in the area I work in, I URGE custodial parents to share
> equally. I beg them practically.......but it doesn't seem to do a lot of
> good. I also BEG the courts to order equal access but again, it doesn't do
> much good. So, my question is............how can we make it better?
Without
> placing blame, calling names etc here in the newsgroup, how do we get the
> system changed? Non-custodial parents feel left out and custodial parents
> feel threatened when you mention it........how do we make kids NOT a
prize?
The answer is the same as it has always been: presumptive joint custody.
Before taking custody away from a parent, it should be necessary to *prove*
that they are unfit. The current system presumes that fathers are unfit,
simply because they are not the mothers. Fathers still have to *fight* for
custody, and that's what is wrong.
I would go farther and suggest that it should be made more difficult for a
divorcing father to forfeit custody. Men often do this in the stress of the
moment, and later regret it. I would suggest there ought to be mandatory
counseling for any parent who asks to relinquish custody. As it is, when a
father says he doesn't want custody, no one tries to talk him out of it. If
we want parents to stay involved in their children's lives we have to be
less cavalier about agreeing to their requests to get out...
(In case it still needs to be said, being an involved divorced father does
NOT simply mean making all of the child support payments on time!)
Denise F. Hayden
custody, no one tries to talk him out of it. If we want parents to stay
involved in their children's lives we have to be less cavalier about
agreeing to their requests to get out..."
Uh, I diasgree with that......I do that on a daily basis. Part of the
problem is that men need to be empowered. So many of them feel as if there
is no chance. Now, how does that get done? I talk until I am blue in the
face and it does no good. I think that legislation needs to be changed so
that Dads or even the Moms wihtout custody can feel more a part of their
childrens' lives.
Denise
cor...@newsguy.com
>
><cor...@newsguy.com> wrote "As it is, when a father says he doesn't want
>custody, no one tries to talk him out of it. If we want parents to stay
>involved in their children's lives we have to be less cavalier about
>agreeing to their requests to get out..."
>
>Uh, I diasgree with that......I do that on a daily basis.
Good for you. But I was speaking generally, and didn't mean my "no one"
literally.
I sure wish you'd been around to talk me out of it when my ex was divorcing me.
I fell for the old "the children will be better off with their mother" argument,
and I agreed to her request for sole custody. Maybe I'm overgeneralizing, and
there are lots of people like you out there, advising men against giving up
custody. But from what I've seen in the newsgroups and elsewhere, I think my
experience is more likely to be the norm...
>Part of the
>problem is that men need to be empowered. So many of them feel as if there
>is no chance. Now, how does that get done? I talk until I am blue in the
>face and it does no good. I think that legislation needs to be changed so
>that Dads or even the Moms wihtout custody can feel more a part of their
>childrens' lives.
I wouldn't look to legislation to change people's hearts. The most you can do
with legislation is to provide incentives or set a cost on some decisions. But
when you do that, you should fully expect people to seek to use the rules to
their advantage.
Again, I would begin by questioning the assumption that one of the parents must
be non-custodial. The default should be joint custody, which was the status quo
prior to the divorce.
I would follow that up by enforcing the same kind of child abandonment laws that
should also apply to married parents.
Divorced parents should be required to work together for the children's benefit,
just as they were expected to do this while they were married. I don't care if
it's hard, or if they don't get along! They had the children, and now they need
to fulfill the obligations that implies. If they can't or won't, and we as a
society are forced to intervene, then there should be penalties. It's at that
point that I would consider taking custody away from one or both of them, and
imposing child support payments.
But I don't think the state should intervene unless and until child neglect is
proven. Nor should it impose CS payments prior to that event. What it does
today is a misguided attempt to equalize the living standards in the parents'
households. At bottom, that's usually just socialist redistributionism, and
doesn't have anything to do with the real costs of raising children. (I think it
has more to do with establishing custodial mothers as political clients, who
will vote for the politicians most likely to see to it that the money keeps
coming.)
The current child support system also makes two false assumptions: (1) That the
best way to raise children is to spend as much as possible on them; and (2) that
the economic factor is the most important one for a child's welfare. CS can
equalize the money in both households, but it won't teach the other parent to
make spaghetti "the right way" or to know exactly what to say when asked about
something they heard in school today...
If we want to empower divorced parents, we have to stop treating them like
incompetents who require constant supervision by the state. We have to treat
them like adults, and leave them alone to do as they see fit --- unless and
until it is proven that they have forfeited this freedom through their own
wanton acts.
My $.02
YMMV
Denise F. Hayden
individuals who cannot let the emotional issues go along enough to be a
deceent co-parent? In other words, how do you ensure that people will act
responsibly?
Denise
--
Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
-Shakespeare-
<cor...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:af7ro...@drn.newsguy.com...
cor...@newsguy.com
>
>Okay.........and while I am not disagreeing, what do you do with the
>individuals who cannot let the emotional issues go along enough to be a
>deceent co-parent? In other words, how do you ensure that people will act
>responsibly?
>
>Denise
Again, I don't think you can legislate that.
But you can use legislation to define what outcomes you won't accept. To define
the boundaries, as it were.
If one of the parents refuses to do his or her part, and it can be shown that
the children are harmed by this, then the custody decision should be revisited,
along with child support payments and any other penalties deemed appropriate.
When it comes to parents who ignore their children's real needs (as opposed to
the imagined needs the redistributionists often talk about), I'm probably even
more of a hard-ass than you imagine.
But I want to see proof of guilt before I impose those penalties, and that's a
big change from the current CS system.
Denise F. Hayden
law. Now, before you say BS............I personally think the practice of
law is about SPIN. You can take current laws on the books and spin them to
your advantage or make them appear to be doing what you suggest. I think
that my view is as long as there is a legal process involved in a social
issue we are going to have a mess. Lawyers and judges aren't trained to
make the decisions they are making. By the same token I am not all that shot
with the mental health business in this regard either. So, I don't have any
answers but think that because a family is multi-dimensional there has to be
more than the one dimension approach that courts apply.
Denise
<cor...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:af7v3...@drn.newsguy.com...
Erin
what I believed in when we were divorcing.
The attorney said full custody, and so much per month. The ex came over and
said do you want me to beg? I said why? He said you are going to take "our"
boys away from me. He told me he screwed up so why punish him? He told me
what my attorney told his without me knowing. He then showed research of
joint custody. I agreed. The marriage broke down but why do our boys suffer?
It has been HELL, but for them it is worth it. Now that 3 years have passed
he acts like a visitation Dad not wanting to participate in decisions or
help financially. You have read posts of my frustration however, they do
have their Dad 50% of the time and I guess that is what matters.
The judge thought I was nuts and told me so. I simply asked where is it
written that men are to be punished by losing their children and destroying
them financially? He looked at me and said good point but Michigan is NOT
ready for this.
Erin
Lauri
>moment, and later regret it. I would suggest there ought to be mandatory
>counseling for any parent who asks to relinquish custody. As it is, when a
>father says he doesn't want custody, no one tries to talk him out of it. If
>we want parents to stay involved in their children's lives we have to be
>less cavalier about agreeing to their requests to get out...
And to be fair, I suspect that in many cases, these fathers may be
voluntarily relinquishing their custody rights because they are pretty
dang sure that if they don't, a huge, horrible custody battle will
ensue and not many people want to put their kids through that (I won't
speculate on why the mothers in these situations would put up such a
fight, because I honestly can't fathom it--I'm lucky enough to have an
ex that is a truly great Dad to our boys).
>
>(In case it still needs to be said, being an involved divorced father does
>NOT simply mean making all of the child support payments on time!)
I think most of us know that, but it sure doesn't hurt to repeat it
anyway. I've said it before and I'll say it again.....I cannot
imagine how tough it would have been to go through life without daily
or near-daily contact with my Daddy. He was a hugely important
presence in my life (still is), and I wouldn't be the person I am
today without his influence. I hope that any mom out there who is
considering withholding visitation without a good reason will
reconsider (and no, the fact that he's never changed a diaper is not a
good reason. He can learn.).
Lauri in WA
I like my email spamless
Lauri
wrote:
>The judge thought I was nuts and told me so. I simply asked where is it
>written that men are to be punished by losing their children and destroying
>them financially? He looked at me and said good point but Michigan is NOT
>ready for this.
You ain't just kidding about Michigan, either. I have a friend who
petitioned the Friend of the Court incessantly for the right to see
his child for a measly friggin' Christmas vacation and a few weeks
during the summer. The judge always agreed, but since the ex-wife had
hauled the kid off to Oklahoma (against court orders), Michigan
couldn't/wouldn't do anything to enforce the visitation. But let him
be a month late on Child Support and by god they were right on it.
cor...@newsguy.com
I think the question is, at what point should the state intervene? Lots of
married parents are emotionally distant or stingy with their money. We don't
(or shouldn't) expect the state to intervene in those cases. I think the same
policy of non-intervention should apply when the parents are divorced.
On the other hand, if someone beats their children, or locks them in a room
without food, we expect the state to intervene, whether the parents are married
or not. Get the idea? The principle thing is to look for the actual harm to the
children, and not for the marital status of the parents.
I'm sorry to hear that your ex frustrates you by not doing some of the things
you would like him to do. I guess that's why you two are divorced, huh? But
his being a "visitation" Dad is still not enough, in my opinion, to impose
penalties upon him. Unless his refusal to help financially is denying your
children the basic requirements of food, clothing and shelter, I don't think he
should be forced, as a matter of law, to do any more.
There should not be a law requiring us to pamper our children! For one thing, if
we were forced to do this by law, it would take all the joy and pride out of
doing it. Just as no one should be blamed for doing something they were forced
to do, no one should be praised for doing something that was similarly forced.
It's only the things we do out of our own free will that deserve praise or
blame.
This means that, except where some penalty is being exacted for proven bad
behavior, legally-enforced CS should be limited to what is required to provide
the basic necessities. If a non-custodial parent chooses to provide more, then
(s)he truly deserves our praise. Parents who choose to provide only what the
law requires deserve our scorn. But social pressure is one thing, legal
requirements are another...
angel
you ron..and anyone who doesnt get to spend all their time with their
children...its the reality of divorce. When my kids are not with me....the
first 10 mins...i think.....ahhhhhhhh rest! after about 30 mins...i start
missing them...i start thinking of things i would love to do with them.
Like this weekend.....we went to my aunts...where my cousin and his children
were there. I spent the day swimming with the other kids..... and wishing i
had my own there.
I dont think that men and women think differently of their children...... I
think that women are more expressive...about their feelings.....where men
seem to hold it in more. I feel for my kids that they cant be wioth us
both... but when we are together.....we fight... in the long run...this is
better for them...even though right now they dont see it...... but right
now...i dont see whats good about anything either
*hugs* ron... i do understand
angel
"Ron in Michigan" <the1i...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020624033108...@mb-cl.aol.com...
Pamela
This means that, except where some penalty is being exacted for proven bad
> behavior, legally-enforced CS should be limited to what is required to
provide
> the basic necessities. If a non-custodial parent chooses to provide more,
then
> (s)he truly deserves our praise. Parents who choose to provide only what
the
> law requires deserve our scorn. But social pressure is one thing, legal
> requirements are another...
And, how would the value of the basic necessities be determined? And, what
would be the definition of basic necessities? Imagine this scenerio.
Married couple, two children. Daughter takes tennis lessons, plays golf,
and is on the dance team. Son plays basketball, also plays golf, and takes
piano lessons. Mom and Dad start fighting. They don't like each other
anymore. But, they assure Bobby and Suzy they love them ever so much. Mom
and Dad go to court. Mom says well, we still need to pay for tennis
lessons, piano lessons, basketball uniforms, golf team, and dance uniforms,
etc. But, Dad says, "nope, I am only going to pay for the basics. If you
want to provide the luxuries, well, that's up to you. Mom says, but between
us we should be able to afford to give them some of the things we gave them
before, (except of course their sense of security, since we are squabbling
about what is basic and what isn't).
The judge sides with the non-custodial parent, which happens to be Dad, but
could be Mom. It is the law. He only needs to cough up the basics. It
doesn't matter that the kids didn't ask for a divorce, or ask to move into a
trailer, or start shopping at the thrift store. It doesn't matter what kind
of life they lived before Mommy and Daddy couldn't handle themselves
properly. It doesn't matter that what is one person's luxury is another
person's basics. And, really children have no rights to anything anyway. He
only need provide the universal basics. Whatever those are.
<cor...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:af8gj...@drn.newsguy.com...