~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
dysgraphia_add
[removed]
[–]duchess_jackanapes120 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
...end child support? just an honest question here: wouldn't most men want to partake in and/or feel obligated to financially support their own child(ren)? this is assuming, of course, that the divorced wife isn't crazy and will actually spend the money on the kids and also contribute financially to them herself.
[–]Quiscalus69 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If it's fair, yes. The problem is that it really isn't fair.
[–]DorkJedi63 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's got a knee-jerk component to it.
My wife filed for food stamps when our son was an infant. The food stamp office filed deadbeat dad paperwork against me and a judge issued a bench warrant for non-payment of child support.
We were not divorced, I was in the Marines serving in Desert Storm as an E3 being paid about $10k a year.
[–][deleted]30 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
...wtf??
[–]DorkJedi51 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
A good summary of my letter to the state.
[–]IameAuhSomme1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Did the state promptly realize their mistake and apologize?
[–]DorkJedi2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Of course not. After proving we are not divorced (think about that... how do you show a non-divorce decree?) they just dropped the charges without a word.
[–]Quiscalus10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That's just gross.
[–]Alaric20004 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So what happened?
[–]DorkJedi17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Eventually they dropped the warrant after a lot of "just pay your fucking child support" letters and speeches. Repeatedly pointing out we are still married and I have no child support phased none.
[–]ordinaryrooster-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So he wasn't supporting his child, married or not?
I can remember my mother telling me about one of her cousins who was married to a guy in the service and he refused to set up an allotment to send her money and she didn't have anything to support her kids. She was living with an aunt and they didn't have much and she used to walk up and down the country roads and pick poke salad (it has to be young to be edible) to have something to feed her kids. I know it's like the song but the song was based on life. That is often what poor people did.
So was this guy not sending an allotment to support his kid?
[–]DorkJedi8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
He is me. And my entire paycheck went to my family, thank you very much. There is only so much you can do with $10k a year.
[–]Johnthereader3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So. . . Yay for government offices being so good at their job. /s
Is it mandatory that they do that, if you aren't there when she files or something?
[–]DorkJedi5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Mandatory, I was told, if a single mother files for any benefits. It is assumed that she had to file because the deadbeat is not paying support. Someone flagged her as single as the "father was not present or available".
Caveat: this was the very early 90's. This may have changed since then.
[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
My mother kept getting asked where my father was whenever he was deployed. She found it really insulting that they always assumed that my father had run off. When she filed for carers allowance for my little sister, it was assumed she was single. When she told the lady at the Centerlink office, she said "Oh, isn't he supporting you enough?"
NO. IT'S JUST BLOODY EXPENSIVE TO RAISE 5 CHILDREN, ONE WITH AUTISM.
Another example why this sort of behavior is detrimental to both men and women.
[–]ordinaryrooster0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Did you have an allotment set up to send her money for the baby? Cause the thing about soldiers, they are always gonna give you food and shelter, which is why they pay so little.
Allotments to Dependents or Relatives. Officers and enlisted members of the Military Services may authorize allotments of pay to their dependents, relatives, or divorced spouse. These allotments may be authorized by the member or administratively initiated under procedures established by the Military Service concerned. It may be made payable to an individual or to a financial organization for credit to the account of the allottee, or a joint account of the allotter and allottee. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/l/blallotments.htm
[–]DorkJedi1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No. I had a small allotment to myself for spending cash ($50/mo IIRC). The entire paycheck went to our bank, which she used.
There are laws, fair or not, that say whenever a child gets welfare or food stamps, they have to try to get support from the absent parent. She didn't have a choice about it.
[–]DorkJedi3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think you mis-read it. I never blamed her, it was the food stamp office and court that fucked up.
[–]duchess_jackanapes10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
just playing the devil's advocate and giving her the benefit of the doubt, since you know, there are good women out there. hopefully there are less unfair situations in amicable divorces where the ex-spouses make as equal a contribution to their children's financial well-being as possible.
[–]hounvs24 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Sadly the system is set up in a shitty fashion. My dad took custody of me a few years ago before I turned 18. They still took child support form him and gave it to my mom when he had custody and I lived with him. It wasn't enough to warrant suing the state and my mom gave the money back anyway, it was just dumb.
[–]SpiritofJames9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
At least both of your parents sound reasonable.
[–]hounvs8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yet that's kind of the problem. If my mom weren't she could have kept it. He can't afford a lawyer (along with other legal costs + taking time off work) if he had to pursue it.
[–]blueoak915 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It happens all the time, because there really are women who really do care about their children more than themsleves, as much as the culture indoctrinates them against any kind of selflessness.
The problem is though that the system is structured against enforcing it. It is all up to the woman if she wants to be a human being about it, and there is no censure or enforcement if she doesn't.
"the ex-spouses make as equal a contribution to their children's financial well-being as possible."
Financial contribution? That's what you think a father's role is? An ATM machine?
[–]duchess_jackanapes4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
no. please stop adding context where there is none. of course a (good) father should have more than a financial role in his child's life. but it just so happens that this thread is specifically relative to child support, not all aspects of raising a child.
[–]_SharkWeek_3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
you think culture indoctrinates women out of selflessness when it comes to child-rearing? You're out of your mind.
[–]SpiritofJames1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Uh... I'd say the issue isn't as clear cut as all that.
[–]_SharkWeek_1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I agree, if by "not as clear cut" you mean completely absurd. I was using blueoak9's words.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Statistically men who get to see their children more have lower rates of defaulting on child support as well. It's almost as if men are allowed to be part of their children's lives they have a vest interest in ensuring they live a comfortable one.
[–]sidwood7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Part of that correlation strikes me as having to do with unfit parents also being less likely to be able to hold a job. I'd like to see that aspect of it studied.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Certainly possible. The problem lies at the metrics for what an unfit parent is, along with claims of abuse even if not demonstrated by the other parent. Family law tends to side with the person "afraid for themselves/the children" to fail conservatively.
[–]sidwood3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I should have phrased that differently: people who have a hard time making ends meet and holding down a job are less likely to be perceived as "fit parents," although they may be Father of the Year in actuality.
Ah I see meow. I think you're right, although I'd be skeptical of that standard applying to men and women equally.
[–]sidwood2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'd be skeptical of that standard applying to men and women equally.
In agreement here. Drafthorses and all that.
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
that makes sense
[–]duchess_jackanapes3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
ps. thanks for answering! :)
[–]Deansdale43 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Most men want to participate in raising their children, which is different from being an ATM machine for someone. At least two thirds of divorce cases are initiated by women, ie. thousands of men are thrown out of their own family against their will daily. How is it "fair" to punish them for being forced out of their own family? Actually this is a perfect case of "adding insult to injury". Not only you lose your family and probably your home to someone who stabbed you in the back, but you also have to reward her with your own money for the next decades, or even for the rest of your life.
[–]duchess_jackanapes6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
yes, I agree. but I cannot really emphasize much more than I already have tried to about the scenario that my question was based on, which implied that the woman in question wasn't a "back-stabbing" bitch. thus, in the case I suggested you wouldn't be "rewarding her." I'm assuming the ex-couple is rational, the divorce is amicable (maybe they just grew apart), perhaps they have shared custody and they divide their possessions amongst them equally.
I'm getting kind of tired of repeating myself here. I don't support forcing a man to finance his ex-wife's lifestyle despite her being an insane asshole. that was never what my question was about.
[–]Mizzet25 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If the divorce is amicable why do we need legislation to get the man to pay child support then? I'm sure he'll be happy to contribute out of his own free will. Sorry if this is a silly question with a real obvious answer, but it's escaping me right now.
[–]duchess_jackanapes8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
no, that is a good answer. I've never been married/divorced/had a child so my question was meant to be taken at face value. thanks!
[–]meeeow7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No it's not a good answer. Like it or not, separation don't always end amicably and relying on good will for something as important as raising a child doesn't seem appropriate at all.
I meant it's a good answer because it's showing his actual opinion without him being a complete asshole about it, like many posters on this are unable to do. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with him. I don't agree or disagree with things I don't know enough about before I know enough about them. so in that respect, yes, it was a good answer - and so was yours. I appreciate the opinions.
[–]meeeow2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Ok fair, thank you for clarifying.
:)
[–]Mizzet2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I was just running with duchess's train of thought that ending child support would neglect to consider the cases where the divorce is amicable and the father willing to pay. As that is the premise of this hypothetical situation, I'm not going to assume the separated couple's relationship is going to sour later.
That said, you seem to recognize how remote a possibility that is compared to the vast number of other reasons that people divorce on unfriendly terms. Personally, I'm inclined to agree. An amicable divorce? With no bickering over custody and related issues? Haha!
However that then leads to the question, what is the justification for maintaining legislation for the sake of these edge cases that make up a vanishingly small portion of the total divorce number? Legislation that is detrimental (some would say unfairly) to the father in the vast majority of divorce cases.
[–]meeeow1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Wait, I just want to be clear on what you mean:
Which legislation are you talking about here? The current one?
Also, the point you make about amicable divores is very true. My parents divorced on very good terms, heck my dad use to come and have lunch with us on a regular basis. Their lawyer told them to please get custody and child support sorted through the court as it'd save them hassle and in the long run protect their friendship. They didn't, and when my mum moved away with me and my brother we needed to get lawyers involved for child support.
[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
why do we need legislation to get the man to pay child support then?
Because people get weird about money, especially when there's a disconnect, like separate living or sparse communication. (Understandable, if the two are divorced and trying to move on.) When you have legal standards for what must be paid, then you give everybody a hard number to fall back on. The absent parent can contribute more to the child by giving more, or less if the present parent wants to feed money back under the table. (Personally, I'd like to see a mechanism where both parents can agree to abolish or reduce the amount required.) But either way, it eliminates any fuzziness about what the parent with custody can expect in support, even in an amicable divorce.
[–]seanicasxc2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Good response. Thank you. Have no idea why are being down-voted.
[–]seanicasxc4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The state has an interest in making sure the children are provided for by their Father. The legislation exists because, shockingly, people who get divorced may not get along later - the legislation protects children in that scenario.
[–]trollwnb-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
its simple if there wasnt, women then would be responsible for there actions. It would so that men would actually had a word in family matters. Then women start to whine ofcourse "but then husband can be abusive and stuff if i dont work stuff, he threatens to throw me out if i tell anyone". Here the answers 1. Get a job, instead of freeloading. 2. dont go into abusive relatioships, you are an adult and nothing is forcing you to stay with abusive partner.
[–]electriophile5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Stay at home mothers are the exception, not the norm. Most families are in two-income households.
[–]Deansdale13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
CS could be fair but it isn't the way things are now. I would consider any voluntary CS agreement perfectly fair. OTOH this state sanctioned abomination calculated by judges based on "imputed income", enforced even if it means throwing men in debtor's prisons is the definition of unfairness.
thank you your answer! I wasn't trying to come onto this forum and troll, just had a sincere question. I appreciate this reply.
[–]Greyfeld3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This won't happen until the government stops getting paid for forcing men to pay.
[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Make CS voluntary and you will essentially eliminate so much of the BS and animosity that exists in family court. It will definitely reduce parental alienation...or at least demonstrate just how unnecessary child support is.
[–]nancyfuqindrew2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's really simple... parents (male and female) are required to support their offspring.
[–]Peter_Principle_6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Indeed. What they should not be required to do is support their ex spouse. The two have gone their separate ways, forcing one to be beholden to the other is tantamount to slavery.
[–]nancyfuqindrew1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Are you referring to child support, or now alimony?
Child support, obviously. That is the topic of discussion.
But child support isn't ex-support. It's paying your ex for the time and money they put out caring for your child. The way you're defining it doesn't fit what it is.
[–]Peter_Principle_4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
But child support isn't ex-support.
If that were true, there would be strong oversight on how the money was spent. As it stands, there is none.
It's paying your ex for the time
And here we see the essential tyranny of the CS system. A man is robbed of his children, forced to be less than a visitor in their lives, and THEN, on top of that, forced to pay for the "privilege." And all the while state governments reap the financial rewards, paid to do so by the federal government.
Your defense of this indentured servitude racket is depressing.
So you want the parent who has custody of the kids to make detailed reports of every dollar they spent on the kids so you can figure out if it's exactly even? And who will be reviewing this, are we requiring receipts? And what about time they take off work to care for those kids, should the non-custodial parent pay "extra" for that month? What about when the child is sick and that parent has to do all the work associated with that? What about just the fact that they do the lion's share of the actual parenting? You're asking for extreme vigilance when the custodial parent is actually the one with the most burden. And that goes for whether it is the father OR the mother. Raising kids is expensive and hard work. I'm not in favor of adding an expense report on top of everything else. But since you are most concerned with fairness, how about this: if the child is sick, a govt. employee will transport a bag of puke to the non-custodial parent's house and dump it in the middle of their bed at 2 am. Since it's important to strive for equality. Again, no matter if this is for a man or a woman... if it's your kid, pay your child support.
Also... you are aware that some women pay child support, are you not? This works both ways!
You're asking for extreme vigilance when the custodial parent is actually the one with the most burden.
If it's that much of a burden, women are more than welcome to give up their privilege and share custody 50/50 with the father. But gee golly willickers, when bills like that show up, requiring shared custody to be the default, women flip the fuck out and fight it tooth and nail. Yeah, it's a real "burden". Get off the victim trip and check your privilege.
Also... you are aware that some women pay child support, are you not
I'm sure there are outliers, but the vast majority who pay are men and they pay more and are raped a lot harder by the government when they don't or can't.
[–]seanicasxc0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Voluntary agreements must be subject to review by the Courts - the beneficiary of the agreement, after all, is a child.
Imputed income is also a necessity. What are you going to if a man who made 100k a year as a IT manager quits his job for the sole purpose of lowering CS payments?
[–]ZeroError3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Your example sounds far-fetched, but even if it were to happen, I don't see why the court should continue to force him to pay the same amount. If he starts earning a much lower wage (regardless of why, and assuming he's not getting more on the side), he should pay less!
[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What are you going to if a man who made 100k a year as a IT manager quits his job for the sole purpose of lowering CS payments?
Who the f_ck would be that stupid? Even the presumption is insane that a man would impoverish himself just to f_ck up his ex-wife's gravy train. This is a misandrist kind of thinking, that men are soooooo evil they will do anything to harm women & children. MISANDRY.
I can't get over people being this dense. Did any of you ever recognize that quitting a job would first of all mean that you lose your own income??? Would YOU leave a 100k/y job and seek employment at McDonalds just to spite your ex? Argh...
[–]seanicasxc1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It happens. Imputed income is also applied when a woman won't/doesn't work - so it goes both ways.
This isn't misandry - this is the law reacting to a problem that existed.
I tend to believe that if a man is willing to destroy his own life and risk prison for no apparent gain whatsoever, he was probably raped spectacularly badly in the divroce court. No sane men would ever do such thing, and this is certainly not the law reacting to a problem but the law creating the problem. The only possible explanation for this kind of thing is vengeance, and for people to exact vengeance upon their own family they must have been grievously wronged. It reminds me of the Thomas James Ball case where Amanda Retardcotte said that he lit himself on fire just to annoy his ex-wife.
Emotions, such as anger from being "raped spectacularly badly" may make a man do this. Sounds like you and I agree - emotional decisions, such as quitting your job out of spite, should not qualify for a reduction in child support.
I think you don't recognise the level of 'anger' needed to completely destroy yourself out of revenge against somebody else. You think it's frequent and trivial while it is anything but.
We disagree completely. First of all I think western family/divorce law is a bad joke, a scam. It needs a complete overhaul, including CS laws. What I would consider mostly fair is this:
The one initiating the divorce is considered to be leaving the family and has no right to take away any children with him/her unless willfully agreed upon by the other spouse. An obvious exception would be at-fault divorce, ie. divorce based on abuse, etc. But in that case the abuse must be factually proven with undeniable evidence, else the accuser gets thrown into jail with his/her parental rights terminated.
CS can only be paid by the one initiating the divorce. The other spouse never has to pay a dime even if s/he lets the 'initiator' take away the children. The amount of CS is set so the children can live a basic but healthy life, taking the custodial parent's earnings into acount, so if s/he earns enough to buy decent food and clothes for the kids then no CS is necessary. (It is ridiculous that some millionaires have to pay huge sums each month to other millionaires. The only thing even more ridiculous is Demi Moore demanding alimony from a guy poorer than herself.)
CS should always be limited to a percentage of the payers' actual earnings, and a not very high percentage at that, maybe 10% per kid and 30% at most regardless of the number of kids. We should not impoverish people just so their exes can live in luxury. CS above 100% of anyone's earnings is a f_ckin' disgrace, a shame on our culture.
Would this lower the number of divorces drastically? Probably. Would this be a million times more fair than what we currently have? Absolutely.
It may not be frequent, but (as you concede), it happens. Again, if a non-custodial parent quits his job and takes a lower-paying position even if he could work elsewhere at his previous salary, his income should be imputed to the higher amount. I realize that I am in a minority here, but I actually think American/Western family law is in a good place. We are moving away from life-time alimony awards and prenuptial agreements are becoming more and more favored. Your ideas are bad.
Undeniable evidence? This is a higher standard of evidence then criminal trials.
Child support isn’t a form of alimony; its completely separate and for the benefit of the children. It doesn’t matter who initiates the divorce. The point of child support is so that the child can live as if he had access to both the parent’s incomes. A child shouldn’t be forced to live a lower-middle class lifestyle if dad is rolling in the dough.
Child support already operates the way you described. My state uses a complex formula that factors in your income, other parents income, days with the child, to derive a child support obligation. Other states uses a percentage based on how many children you have. No state goes above 30%.
(as you concede), it happens
About 3 times per year, tops. I don't think it warrants a specific set of laws.
if a non-custodial parent quits his job and takes a lower-paying position even if he could work elsewhere at his previous salary, his income should be imputed to the higher amount
The heck no. What you describe is modern day slavery, and I don't mean figuratively, but literally. What on earth could entitle anyone to prohibit you from changing jobs? What right does a judge have to force you to do the same job forever no matter what it does to your mental or physical health, or if you want to move, or whatever??? This is absolutely crazy. If you worked your ass off for your family which suddenly gets destroyed and you feel there's no need to work yourself to an early grave anymore it is your god-given right to do as you please and change your job, leave it completely and go unemployed, etc. And no court has any right to punish you for this.
I realize that I am in a minority here
You are :)
“No fault” divorces are a wonderful thing.
I did not say anything about no fault divorce. They are 100% compatible with my ideas. But they are "wonderful" only if you want society destroyed, families torn apart for no good reason, etc. As far as I'm concerned only bad or ignorant people love frivolous divorce. Then again, I feel I need to re-state that everyone would be perfectly free to divorce anytime they fancy, the only drawback being that they would have to leave the children behind, which is absolutely fair towards the other spouse who in 90% of the cases are absolutely innocent and did nothing seriously wrong. “Inappropriate marital conduct” is not a serious wrong in my book, it is a fancy euphemism for boredom. If you got bored with your spouse and want to quit, be prepared to leave the children behind.
False accusations are so f_cking rampant these days that something has to happen. Also, nowadays it is so easy to capture things on camera or on a dictaphone that gathering evidence should be child's play. I am generous though :) so okay, let's apply the standard of evidence used in criminal trials.
Child support isn’t a form of alimony
And, erhm, your point being? I never said it was.
It doesn’t matter who initiates the divorce.
It does matter because we cannot incentivise people to divorce, and we must not reward divorce initiators for "family theft". It is a hair-raising idea that people are free to rob others of their children and then extort them for money legally. If you want to leave the family be prepared to do so on your own buck, don't demand that the other party finance your independent life. If you don't have enough money to raise the children, let the other party have the children or don't leave at all. If you made bad decisions in your life be prepared to face the consequences once in a while, don't run to the courts to punish others for your mistakes.
A child shouldn’t be forced to live a lower-middle class lifestyle if dad is rolling in the dough.
And why exactly? What is so wrong with a middle class lifestyle that we absolutely must save those kids from that? What makes them entitled to be rich? And I'd like to remind you that they are never "forced" to live a lower class lifestyle, it was the divorcee's decision for them to have one. If a poor mother takes the kids away from a wealthy father they can thank her for it.
No state goes above 30%.
Tell that to Charles Bruce who went to prison on live TV for CS+alimony being more than 100% of his income. The system is fucked up.
What you describe is modern day slavery, and I don't mean figuratively, but literally.
Being forced to support your children is the new slavery? This is why no one takes MRA's seriously. You can quit jobs for valid reasons (health,etc.) and the judge won't impute income.
No one offers incentives for divorcing. The pot is always smaller after a divorce. Children shouldn't have to bear the consequences of divorce.
Children shouldn't have to bear the consequences of divorce. Maybe Dad should grow up and realize that his children deserve a good lifestyle regardless of why his wife left him.
Want to help men's rights? Stop posting. Its dumb arguments like this that hinder MR more than anything else.
Being forced to support your children is the new slavery?
Why yes it is, BEING FORCED to work and fork over your income to somebody else is a neat definition of slavery.
This is why no one takes MRA's seriously.
Oh well, you can just fuck off then :)
You can quit jobs for valid reasons (health,etc.) and the judge won't impute income.
Again, tell that to the 50.000 people in US prisons for CS arrears. Most of them aren't deadbeats who have the money just don't fancy paying, they are poor. They have lost their jobs or their payments are so high they can't keep up.
No one offers incentives for divorcing.
What the freakin' fuck are you talking about??? The whole system is one giant incentive for women to cash in and take hubby to the cleaners. You are either very naive or playing dumb.
The pot is always smaller after a divorce.
Yeah, technically. Except that most women leave marriages richer than they went in, and receive free money in the form of CS+alimony. Many doesn't even have to work, they live off this gravy train. This is not a secret, stop being so daft.
Children shouldn't have to bear the consequences of divorce.
They don't. Most of the time the father does. That is why I say the system is unfair, because very often it is the father who bears the responsibility for the mother's decision. This is fucked up.
Maybe Dad should grow up and realize that his children deserve a good lifestyle regardless of why his wife left him.
Yeah, sure, shaming men into forking over their money should work just fine.
That is funny coming from someone whose opinion is that men should men up, shut up and pay. Is that your idea of men's rights?
No, my idea is that a man should grow up and act/think like an adult.
You can quit your job, even if you pay child support. Are there consequences to that action? Yes. If I quit my job, stop paying rent, and get kicked out, is my landlord a slavemaster?
You suggest that men should only have pay child support if certain arbitrary conditions are met. The state, according to you, shouldn’t bother to ask what parent is actually better at raising the children – we should look to see who filed for divorce first, or if the person on the other end of the divorce will allow the person seeking a divorce custody.
You bemoan the fact that you are asked support your children beyond a subsistence level of living. Your children, according to you, are only entitled to both parents resources if they stay together. If it doesn’t work out “the children can thank her.”
You complain that family court is rigged. Courts ignore “the best interest of the children” (read loosely as “children must be with father). But it’s very clear you aren’t concerned with the interest of the children either – you just want the game to be “rigged” in your favor. This is why no one takes MRA’s seriously – you complain that the game is rigged, but then propose rules that simply rig the game in your favor.
Nobody forces you (or any husband and father for that matter) to keep any job. And if you don't have money nobody throws you into jail. It only happens if your wife decided to become an exwife. Then you are obligated to give her cash and prizes and suddenly many things become illegal which are perfectly legal for everybody else. But you did not commit any crime, did you? Why are the so called justice system punishing you just for being divorced?
We could argue for years on what would constitute a fair family law system. The only thing which is absolutely sure is that our current one is fucked up beyond belief. 50.000 men are in jail for CS arrears. Any questions?
I know, I know, you have many.
But you know what, I'm in a generous mood (and also quite tired of your stupid accusations) so I say fuck it, you win, men should men up and give their last cents to golddiggers, backstabbing bitches, lying whores. That would solve every problem in the world. The courts are fine, and it is absolutely fair to throw tens of thousands of bankrupt, destitute fathers into prison for having the gall to be poor.
[–]HokesOne-10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah because no man ever is the architect of their own destiny and they are all completely innocent and didn't do a single thing to sabotage the relationship and everything is the fault of those silly feeeeemales
[–]altmehere16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
because no man ever is the architect of their own destiny
When someone else makes a decision and you are forced to comply with it by the state, no, this is indeed not possible.
they are all completely innocent
This is irrelevant. Some are, some aren't, and many are somewhere in between; but just because some are bad people doesn't mean every man should have to live by rules made with the worst in mind.
everything is the fault of those silly feeeeemales
When you give people (women and men) incentive to do things that will harm others by taking away or downplaying all (or most) of the negative consequences while keeping the positive ones, they will tend to do those things.
I also believe you are rather quick to dismiss what these men feel about the situation (i.e. being "stabbed ... in the back") for someone who comes from AMR and SRS.
[–]HokesOne-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What incentive?
Average monthly child support payment in USA: $430. Average monthly cost of raising a child in USA: $1050.
[–]RavensHonor16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What exactly is your source on this? Nobody that I know is paying that low.
[–]Peter_Principle_14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Going by your numbers her half is 525, and his half is 525. He pays his 525ish when the kids are with him, and she pays her 525ish when the kids are with her. But on top of that you want to force him to pay her $430, reducing the amount she pays to $95. He has to carry his half of the load, and 81% of her half, too. Of course, he's also going to be responsible for medical insurance and some large portion of medical expenses, plus whatever else she can squeeze out of him, such as child care costs, extra money for 'extra cirricular activities' and that sort of half-assed bullshit.
Seems incredibly lopsided.
We are talking about custodial parent and noncustodial parents here. Not arrangements where custody is split evenly.
If you only see your kid on weekends, the person making career sacrifices to raise your child should be compensated.
[–]Peter_Principle_20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
We are talking about custodial parent and noncustodial parents here.
Doesn't really matter since the major costs of raising a child still apply even if you only see your kids on weekends. The mortgage, car loan, car insurance, etc. companies don't give you a break because you live alone 70% of the time.
If the arrangement is split unevenly, her responsibilty should be even higher than 50% to account for the greater amount of time she gets to spend with her children. It's a pretty shitty move to monopolize time with the kids and then demand the other parent pay for it.
the person making career sacrifices
Riiiiight, career sacrifices. So mom is at work making her own money, and now dad has to give her even more. OR, she's at home sponging off of some other guy, and dad pays her to be someone else's wife. Sorry, still incredibly disproportional.
raise your child
Her child, too. How does she compensate him for being FORCED to make family sacrifices (especially if he gets a new family and is unable to support them because of his CS payments to her).
Just another small point here. Given typical family court behavior, the man is not the father...except when it comes time to extract money. Governments spend three orders of magnitude more money enforcing CS payments than they do enforcing visitation. The only engage in the latter act if the man ponies up the money to hire a lawyer in the first place, and then it's a toss of the coin if a court will punish a woman for willful violation of visitation orders. If a man is late one month on his cs payments, however, down comes the hammer.
So yeah, this "your child" guilt trip emotional argument really doesn't apply to people who understand how the family courts work.
[–]Volkrisse8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
ding ding ding... we have a winner ^
[–]HokesOne-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
but you clearly get a break on the cost of feeding and housing your child. shouldn't that be equalized between parents so that the custodial parent isn't punished because you're not around?
the majority of fathers that are non-custodial are so because they didn't even bother fighting for custody. in fact, when a father bothers to fight for custody, they tend to win.
being a custodial parent does require career sacrifice, you need to be less flexible with your work schedule, take greater amount of time off, and are disproportionately passed over for promotion. the non custodial parent has a responsibility to not punish their child for their absence by subsidizing the custodial parent.
[–]fokm8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Thanks, I needed a laugh. Oh, this is just rich.
Source this, please, because I think you just pulled this straight from your ass.
being a custodial parent does require career sacrifice, you need to be less flexible with your work schedule, take greater amount of time off, and are disproportionately passed over for promotion.
Sounds to me like you can't handle being the custodial parent, so why not voluntarily give up your custody so that you can work more to provide a better life for your kids?
Life is about choices, honey, and sounds to me like you want everything subsidized by your former partner.
[–]stopsayingfaggot3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This might help.
Also, there's this.
[–]fokm6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Thank you for actually citing a source.
I have been unable to read all of the first link, but the thing that jumped out most at me was that they consider "joint custody" as being "awarded custody."
This is where actually going through this stuff you realize that is not the complete story. When non-lawyers talk custody, they talk about "sole physical custody".
I said it myself: I filed for custody twice, and lost twice. I was speaking about sole physical. I did file for custody and was originally awarded joint legal. The conditions are I'm to be informed of my child's development and be involved in decisions, but if me and mommy disagree, mommy gets her way. That's assuming mommy even bothered to inform me about things beforehand.
So yes, I have legal rights to my daughter, which I didn't have when this started, but that does not amount to me being awarded custody.
These ambiguous definitions of theirs muddy the waters. Also, many men don't fight because they feel like they can't afford it. I personally have met at least two guys who were flat out told by lawyers that they shouldn't file for custody because they would never win -- they'd either have to prove flatout drug addiction or that the mother was an active prostitute.
The problem with the second link is that it too assumes a lot. 50% of men agree to give up their kids -- again, maybe they don't want to blow their money on an uphill legal battle because they can't afford it and the chances of winning sole custody are slim. Or maybe they don't want anything to do with their kids. Or maybe they don't want anything to do with the kid's crazy mom. There's all sorts of reasons a man might not want to fight for his rights. I don't excuse them all, but understand some.
So I counter your link with mine: Why do women file more for divorce than men?
From the link:
We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.
Despite neutrality in the custody laws, it remains true that judges are inclined to award children to women (Garrison, 1996; Pearson and Luchesi Ring, 1983, pp. 718–23).
[–]HokesOne-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Way to completely misread me Buddy.
Protip: I'm a man with no children.
[–]theskepticalidealist9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You would do well to back up the claim, I've seen feminists and their sympathisers make the same claim quite often, but never seen any evidence of it
[–]fokm9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I filed for custody, twice, and was not awarded it, twice.
[–]HokesOne0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
My source, as I've said in reply to another poster, is either Wikipedia or an about.com article I read a few months ago but didn't bookmark. I'm not going to scour the internet to satisfy your paranoia. Also, you should know that personal anecdotes don't constitute systemic oppression. Maybe there is an excellent reason you weren't awarded custody that you're choosing not to disclose.
[–]HokesOne-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Also, how does one "sound like a man" in writing? Do I need to dot my is with little fedoras?
[–]fokm4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
IMO, your arguments are more emotional than logical.
I honestly thought you were a woman based on your writing. I'm not trying to insult you, just telling you what I believed.
[–]altmehere2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Based on the language they use:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/014466601164812/abstract
[–]Peter_Principle_7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm a man with no children.
For your sake, I hope you're never subject to the system you're supporting here. You will quickly find out why so many people oppose it.
but you clearly get a break on the cost of feeding and housing your child.
1) The difference is negligible given that the major expense, rent, occurs independent of time spent with children. The other major expense, medical, is carried almost exclusively by the non-custodial parent.
2) What little less I spend in money happens because I spend less time with my child. I pay less, and I am relegated to being a part-time father. What compensation do I receive for that forced sacrifice?
shouldn't that be equalized between parents so that the custodial parent isn't punished because you're not around?
No. Now notice, right off the bat, that you're saying this is to compensate the other parent. This money is ostensibly supposed to be for the child, but even it's proponents recognize that the money is really meant to be a bonus for the other parent. The children are essentially irrelevant.
But that's not the main issue, because the factor you're missing is the unintended consequences. If one parent gets money for an asymmetric custody arrangement, you're incentivising parental alienation. You're saying to women "Here's a shitton of money, but you're not going to get it if you don't pretend your ex is a child molestor, and you don't treat your kids like pawns to be exploited." You're paying women to rob their children of their fathers, what do you expect to happen? So is it any surprise they rob their children of their fathers, alienate their exes and put their kids at horrible risk of becoming criminals and teenage parents? I'd certainly hope not, but that's what happens.
the majority of fathers that are non-custodial are so because they didn't even bother fighting for custody.
Yes, because they know they can't win, so why spend even more money just to lose? Mothers are strongly favored over fathers, and divorce attorneys know this. So they advise settlement, and with good reason. This is known as bargaining in the shadow of the law. I talked to about ten different lawyers when I went through my divorce, and they all say the same thing. "Fighting for equal custody is probably a waste of time and money unless she's been to prison for child abuse or she's a drug addict. Settle."
in fact, when a father bothers to fight for custody, they tend to win.
Because those are the fathers who know they can win because they are leaving demonstrably abusive or unfit mothers. These are the cases where lawyers recommend fighting because family courts have trouble ignoring arrest records or blatant drug addiction problems. Even that, though, is no guarantee for success.
being a custodial parent does require career sacrifice
So what. That should be the price you pay if you want to screw the other parent out of being a parent (assuming what you're claiming is true). I have yet to see you address this point.
[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You must be on some quality shit. Care to pass some along? I sure could use it this weekend!
[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Settled. You are indeed retarded. Happy 'tarding!
[–]HokesOne-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well well well, aren't you just a swell swell fellow. Thanks for participating.
[–]theskepticalidealist5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Btw is that figure $1050 total cost of child or is it per parent? Do you expect men to pay the entire $1050 a year? And what if the men have custody half the time or even a quarter of the time or at weekends or something? Do you feel this should reduce child support? Does your figure of $430 take into account these factors? Otherwise it seems to me what you posted is rather meaningless
Per child per month in both cases. Also because you keep asking me where I got the figures I read them on either Wikipedia or about.com a few months ago and could be stats from 2011.
[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well 1 you're going to need to be a lot more specific than just "wikipedia" or "about.com" if you're basing your argument on it. And 2, you need to demonstrate those figures incorporate what I mentioned. It tells us nothing otherwise.
[–]UnapologeticMonster4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
My child support order also keeps the kiddo under insurance, as all child support orders in my state are ordered to do if the father has insurance.
Of course, that monetary value isn't figured into the dollar amount, but it's about $100 extra to upgrade from Single Person to Family insurance for me, and another $50 for dental.
If you pay $1050 on ONE kid a month you are spending WAAAYY too much. I live on like $300 a month.
[–]Deansdale3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
two thirds of divorce cases are initiated by women
What is too hard to understand here? Who the f_ck said "no man ever is the architect of their own destiny"??? Strawmen and red herrings FTW.
[–]electriophile7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Because the person above was saying that all men whose wives leave them are "unjustly thrown out of their homes," as if none of those men could possibly be cheaters, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc (my father was all of the above). They couldn't possibly have done something to deserve being divorced. Are a lot of divorces the fault of the woman? Of course. Are all of them? Hell no.
Domestic violence and adultery are cut pretty evenly across gender lines, and the majority of families are two-income households.
[–]HokesOne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You're completely ignoring the likelihood that the men in those relationships were being shitty enough to warrant wanting a divorce.
Typically the self-report reasons given for initiating divorces are trivial, and do not involve abuse or infidelity.
[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Your "logic" looks pretty shitty.
[–]gnovos2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They aren't?
"Also, the MRM is not a mirror to feminism in any real sense. It's an anti-intellectual parade of barely concealed misogyny that can't seem to understand that deconstructing oppressive gender roles benefits everyone, not just women." http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/1a0od6/be_as_aware_of_misandry_as_we_are_of_misogyny/c8t3k1q
Remember who you're up voting, folks.
EDIT: Not saying to down-vote based on history, just saying be aware.
[–]Greyfeld8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Up/downvoting based on a person's posting history is silly and immature.
[–]HokesOne4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In his defense I'm pretty sure I said that like yesterday. So it's not like there's much distance between myself and that statement. Also I'm pretty sure it was more him questioning why a wild SRSer had appeared on fedora archipelago, which I suppose is fair.
[–]Greyfeld5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
An argument that holds water doesn't start leaking based on who's making it. I'm all for ignoring people who are known trolls, but I refuse to encourage others to reject an idea out of hand, based purely on its source.
On that I certainly agree with you 100%
Luckily I think at least a few people here are able to speak at length in opposition civilly and don't take themselves too serious.
I agree. Edited original.
[–]HokesOne-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
D: !!! Thanks for the trip down memory road. I tip my fedora to you gentlesir!
Swift-edit: just because I'm ideologically opposed to the MRM doesn't mean I'm not bringing up rational counter points that the more reasonable fedoristas may agree with.
[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
just because I'm ideologically opposed to the MRM doesn't mean I'm not bringing up rational counter points
While this may be true, and I choose to view your opinions on their merits, it does call into question your motivations for being here.
because i believe that people with opposing viewpoints should engage in discussion so as to find common ground and strengthen and flush-out the nuances of their worldview?
i can't say i recall anything particularly incendiary i've said here, i just think it's important to remind people in (what i see as) a potentially dangerous subculture that they should look for answers outside the echo chamber.
[–]NotARealAtty8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Coming from someone that posts in SRS this might be the most hypocritical statement I have ever heard.
[–]HokesOne-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
SRS is a Circlejerk. We don't have serious discussions there. For serious discussions we have /r/SRSDiscussion which despite being still moderated for relevancy and etiquette is permissive of outside participation. I figured this sub counts as the same for you lot.
[–]NotARealAtty7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Except thus sub doesn't delete and ban anyone with dissenting viewpoints, which is exactly what every SRS sub does.
As I said, if you go on a non-SRSPrime board and are polite and on-topic, you won't be deleted or banned. Also, I'm not a mod so I don't know why the moderation is somehow any of my business.
[–]NotARealAtty2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
As I said, if you go on a non-SRSPrime board and are polite and on-topic, you won't be deleted or banned.
maybe you won't be banned, but those of us that aren't fucking psychos will in an instant.
[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
SRS person here? That explains all the nonsense that you have been spewing on this thread. Laughable.
Care to elaborate? I feel I've been pretty civil (though maybe a little irreverent) in this thread and there's no sense in holding an opinion if you can't defend it or it won't hold up under scrutiny. I would think an MRA such as your self, wanting his movement to become credible, would jump at the opportunity to join a discussion with an ideological foe.
Fair enough :)
Are you retarded?
[–]NegativeZEN16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
this is assuming, of course, that the divorced wife isn't crazy and will actually spend the money on the kids and also contribute financially to them herself.
Ha. Keep dreaming pal. Most people given free money will do more selfish things than selfless.
My mom spent more on shoes, jewelry, and drugs than she did my little brother and I. We were lucky to have Walmart tees and SpaghettiOs for dinner. When my brother and I were both 18, she kicked us out and basically moved to Virginia in under a week.
Thankfully, my loving father took us in and turned our lives around for the best. My mother didn't teach me much, but she taught me this; giving money to people with no strings attached is basically empowering people to legally steal from those who are hardworking.
I'm sorry for what you endured, however, that doesn't mean all mothers would do that. and personally I believe that having a child together is one of the biggest "strings attached" you can have. If I had a child with my partner and we later grew apart and divorced, I wouldn't randomly turn into an evil person and dick him and my own child over. Being a bad wife is one thing (I'm not condoning it), but being a bad mother is another. IMO, you have to be kind of a bad person all around to not put your children's needs ahead of your own - this is no offense to your mother of course, since I don't know her personally. I know a lot of people would consider my standpoint naive, but I just prefer to be optimistic and give people the benefit of the doubt before I assume the worst of them. I don't blame you for being a cynic though, since you are drawing from your own personal experiences.
[–]alaysian14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If you have a reasonable ex, you don't need the current child support to come to some kind of deal. If you have an unreasonable ex, they will exploit the system and your kids are unlikely to see any of the money.
How does this system help again? If we are petitioning for legal parental surrender, a reasonable women would not demand a man pay for a child he didn't want, after all.
[–]duchess_jackanapes-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I am basing my question solely on the scenario I provided (everyone involved is being rational). I am not delving into the realm of crazy divorced bitches, bastardized or unwanted children, deadbeat fathers, etc at 5:30 in the morning.
[–]Greyfeld4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Except that's what needs to be discussed. Laws aren't created to protect sane people from one another, they're created to protect us from the insane; from the people who would go above and beyond what's reasonable, to take advantage of other human beings for their own benefit.
fair enough
[–]blueoak94 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"that doesn't mean all mothers would do that."
Well that's not good enough, is it? Not all mothers? So then what about the ones that do? What's your plan for that? How about some laws that deal with divorce on some kind of basis of legal equality and concern for the children?
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
that would be nice, wouldn't it? I agree with you, no need to get snarky.
[–]blueoak91 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Okay. You're just asking, and really I am answering someone else, a million other comments that only sound like yours but were not as honest. Not your fault. I take your point.
I hope you're not using sarcasm, because I actually wasn't. I really did mean it as a genuine question, and I really am sorry for what you had to deal with.
[–]selfsufficientnigga3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
that doesn't mean all mothers would do that
Ah yes, the famous 'not all women are like that' defense.
Should we make rape legal, stating 'doesn't mean all men would do that'?
It doesn't matter if all mothers are like that or not, what matters is that some are like that, and that they can ruin the lives of their kids for their own profit. I am very much for child support, but only if there's some kind of oversight on how it's spent.
I was following you until the whole "should we make rape legal" argument. I think it's a bit crass of you to compare rape to child support payments.
I agree with the rest of what you said, though, so thanks for your reply.
[–]selfsufficientnigga0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Abusive mothers who ruin the lives of their children are not better than rapists in my opinion.
abusive mothers, maybe. but I still think your analogy is way too far-fetched. we're talking about parents (mothers or fathers) who withhold money from their children, which is much different than beating or torturing them. abuse and beatings are perhaps more akin to rape than being a deadbeat parent, but the connections end there.
Sure; it's just that the psychological abuse is much worse when it's perpetrated on a (young) kid, and can be worse than the physical.
Anyhow, I wasn't trying to make a case for rapists, of course, just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning/argument.
I suppose I see what you're saying, however, rape is much more than just "the physical"... the way I understand it, it's deeply emotionally and psychologically scarring as well.
don't worry, I don't think you're trying to make a case for rapists!
Aptly said, my friend.
[–]Drainedsoul10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
...end child support? just an honest question here: wouldn't most men want to partake in and/or feel obligated to financially support their own child(ren)?
These two have nothing to do with one another.
There's a difference between wanting to do something and being forced to do it at gunpoint.
The former is what a caring parent does in providing for their child.
The latter is what the state does when it uses courts et cetera to extract child support from unwilling parents.
[–]duchess_jackanapes-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"forced to do it at gunpoint" ...a bit extreme, no?
sure, there is a difference between those two things, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that they don't overlap. if I had a child not only would I want to provide for them, but I would simultaneously feel obligated to provide for them. that's what being a responsible parent is about, as opposed to a deadbeat parent (note: I did not say deadbeat father). anyone who is "unwilling" to care for their child (that they supposedly wanted in the first place) should just do the world a favor and not procreate - either that or grow up.
[–]Drainedsoul12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's not extreme at all. Try not complying with the state's demands and see what happens.
Also: Men who have children didn't necessarily choose to procreate.
[–]duchess_jackanapes-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
to be exact, I specifically said: "anyone who is 'unwilling' to care for their child (that they supposedly wanted in the first place) should just do the world a favor and not procreate."
perhaps you disregarded my parenthesis. I used clarity there for a reason.
[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Asked and answered.
If the divorce is amicable why do we need legislation to get the man to pay child support then?
The problem is that it is not fair and there are, indeed, nasty women who manipulate the system, deny fathers their rights to see their children.
Now I believe you are trolling. GTFO.
if it's asked and answered, why are you answering again? idiot
and it's really sweet that you think I give half a shit about you telling me to leave.
[–]Pizzashooz2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
it's really sweet
[–][deleted]8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
(That they supposedly wanted in the first place) Are you serious? Once a woman gets pregnant the man has absolutely no say. The woman has multiple chances to abort or give away immediately at birth. If she wants the baby the man is forced to face the consequences no matter if he wants it or not.
[–]duchess_jackanapes-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
holy shit. are YOU serious? what don't you understand? I was speaking English the last time I checked. THE ASSUMPTION HERE IS THAT THE MAN PLANNED FOR - AND WANTED - AND ULTIMATELY HAD - THIS CHILD WITH HIS WIFE. please let me know if I need to simplify this any further for you.
I am not talking about men who didn't have a say, or their crazy wives or gfs lied about contraception, or shoved sperm inside them to get secretly pregnant. honestly I don't know what is so difficult about considering this hypothetical. some men actually WANT kids, no?
[–]doctorhillbilly19 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think maybe your hypothetical sidesteps the real issue. State mandated child support and alimony are unethical practices because they automatically financially punish men for every ended mairrage regardless of context, fault or financial dynamics of the mairrage. In your scenario, an amicable divorce between 2 rational people, mandated child support is not needed but still legally mandated. However, in less ideal scenarios, the man is automatically found to be financially responsible. This is unethical because: 1)It forces men to pay 2)Puts men in a defensive position; they have more to lose if they can't make the mairrage work 3)Insinuates they men wouldn't care for their children if they weren't force 4)Insinuates women aren't capable of financially supporting themselves or their children without a man
The root issue is an inequality in the rights enjoyed by women and men. It's not whether helping pay for your kid is right, it's whether one half of that kids gene pool should be forced to pay based on gender.
You make words more gooder then me.
[–][deleted]11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The laws here are extremely biased. Unless the mom is a cracked out prostitute she has him by the balls.
fair enough. thanks for your answer :)
I doubt you genuinely understood what he was trying to say.
I doubt you're as smart as you pretend to be, but hey...
he was saying that child support laws are biased against men, and only in cases where the mothers are extremely shitty and bad (ie. cracked out prostitute) does the father have a chance at fair custody or child support laws working in his favor.
pretty obvious. did you need me to spell that out for you?
[–]Bhorzo1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Men don't want kids. If they claim they do, they're liars. Get with the program dude... No man has ever chosen to have children!
lol, you're probably kidding? but if not, I disagree; I was planned (and not just by my mother). and I've had conversations with plenty of men who have expressed a blatant interest in having kids, some have even wanted them even though their SO didn't.
[–]blueoak95 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"forced to do it at gunpoint" ...a bit extreme, no?"
No. Jail for failure to pay CS is pretty much "at gunpoint".
[–]bridgecrewdave2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Specially since once your sentence is over. Theyll ask you if you can pay the child support now, which you won't be able to. You were in jail. And if not guess what? Back in you go! Rinse, repeat.
Does that actually happen? Is this a USA thing... ? You actually get sent to prison for not paying child support?
[–]bridgecrewdave1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Dunno bout America. I'm Canadian and it can happen here. Google "Dave Foley Child Support" and see
[–]Whisper7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
How about men who didn't get a choice as to whether to make them or not, who never had a chance to see them and develop a relationship, and who never had any say in how they were raised?
there are BILLIONS of scenarios that could fit any particular divorce situation, and I tried to make my question extremely simple by implying that it was to be assumed that both parents wanted the children and the mother happened to be a decent person. my opinion will change with the situation, but like I said, there are way too many different complexities that one could bring into this and thus my perspective is variable.
long answer short, I'm not just automatically "for" child support in any given situation. but I'm not automatically against it in any given situation, either.
(long answer short, I'm not just automatically "for" child support in any given situation. but I'm not automatically against it in any given situation, either.) agreed. There are so many shades of grey in shit like this.
[–]justanothermra7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I guess I should take a stab at this, since I was the one who caused the ruckus.
It sounds like you agree on ending alimony and pregimony. That's good. That's a start. We need to talk about ending stealth alimony, too. That means that the women you see who post on Facebook that the child support check came in, so they're going to buy some shoes, need to stop doing that. Yeah, that happens. 4chan posts some pretty amusing pictures of that. And that "assuming" you did it just ... well, it's huge. You've waved away an enormous part of the problem. You've said, "In an ideal world ..." but we don't live there.
As to child support in general, we would love to feel like equal participants, but we don't. We aren't equal participants the second sperm and egg meet. As a woman, you can walk away in a number of ways. Women can abort through a variety of procedures (including a convenient pill), women can put the child up for adoption (or just leave the baby at the nearest fire station), and women can do the time-honored bit of having the child raised by a relative. Men have none of those choices. After conception, men are just along for the ride.
All of the rights are yours. All of the responsibilities are ours. If you are truly interested in equality, you can see how this is a problem. We both know that the system is rigged against men at every turn.
I know, I know, you'll say, "What about the best interests of the child?" The best interests of the child include things like "not being aborted" and "not being in a foster home." Somehow, the women who trot out that line forget that they, too, do not act in the best interests of the child. The Best Interests rings fairly hollow because of this discrepancy.
We can talk about child support, but we need a lot of changes to get to the point where it can be done in a fair and equitable manner. Right now, most women oppose this at every turn. Just look at Dave Foley's child support payments -- do you really think they are anywhere near fair?
When child support and all of the factors that go into deciding who has to pay it and how much get near equitable, we can talk about it. Until then, child support (won't somebody think of the children?) puts a very nice spin on systematic exploitation of men in the West, men who, in some countries, aren't even legally allowed to check if the child they are supporting is their own.
thank you for your kind response. I was asking an honest question and don't appreciate all the crazy posters on here who attack me just because they assume I'm against them. I was asking an honest question. I am open to discussion about how people think it's good or bad, because I'm open-minded. I am WAY less likely to listen to people who automatically jump on the defense and berate me. It's not a very good way for those people to get their points across because I just stop listening. I've never been married or had kids so I was genuinely just curious. I'm sorry so many people on here are butthurt over it.
I appreciate your response for not only for your tone, but for the information you provided. Thanks!
Yes and they would keep doing it, just with SOME oversight as to how the money is spent and how much. Basically making fathers actually part of their children's lives, the children they pay for. I guarentee you if Men had the "financial abortion" options the # of girls "forgetting" birth control would swiftly move to ZERO!
[–]theskepticalidealist3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Imo Nothing wrong with child support as an idea. But there's a whole lot of shit surrounding its implementation and of course how women can make a man pay child support for a child that isn't even his.
that's a good response
[–]borderlinebadger3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Shared custody should be the default. Fathers (and mothers) should be liable for some expenses but not forced to pay directly to their ex. There should be no expectation that either parent is not working once the kids are at school.
I agree with that
[–]blueoak92 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"...end child support? just an honest question here: wouldn't most men want to partake in and/or feel obligated to financially support their own child(ren)? "
Wait, back up - why is the question do men feel obligated to support their children, why isn't the question do men feel obligated to raise their children?
Why do you assume that the man should be paying the child support to the woman who is raising the children? Why shouldn't he be raising his children? Why is it just assumed that the mother will eb raising them?
If we as a society truly love our children, why do we settle on second best for them?
I agree with you. but if you notice, I'm not the one here doing the original assuming. the OP posted something about "ending child support"...this automatically assumes the father doesn't have custody. I'm not saying I agree with it.
wouldn't most men want to partake in and/or feel obligated to financially support their own child(ren)?
I do support my children. I see no need to pick up part of her half of the tab, too. She is no longer beholden to me, why do you want to force me to be beholden to her?
I didn't say he should "support the children in full." in another thread I mentioned "equal financial contributions" between the ex-spouses. nowhere did I say that the man should give 100% while she gives 0%. I was only talking about 50-50.
[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I didn't say he should
You're avoiding the question. I do support my children, almost exactly to the same tune that she does AND I see my kids four fucking days out of the month. She gets the kids AND the money? Ridiculously unfair. So I ask again: She is no longer beholden to me, why do you want to force me to be beholden to her?
I'm avoiding the question? You are avoiding the answer.
I didn't say he should. exactly. sorry, I didn't realize this thread was specifically revolving around you and your situation. If you want to go into the details of your exact scenario on here, then please, feel free. I'm not going to answer about your specific case with such a low amount of background context. I don't know anything about the nature of your marriage or divorce, or how good of a mother and father the two of you are, so how can I answer that?
[–]duchess_jackanapes0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
ps. you made it sound like in your situation you are paying 100% of the cost to raise your children. is that true? I do agree that 50% is fair, so long as there is something in place to ensure it is going to the children instead of the mother. I'm sorry about your 4 days of custody. I consider that a separate issue, but not saying I agree with it, like I said I don't know the extent of your situation. feel free to explain if you'd like.
[–]Peter_Principle_0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
ps. you made it sound like in your situation you are paying 100% of the cost to raise your children.
That's funny, because in the post I was responding to, you make it sound like a man is completely abandoning his children unless he's paying out fat cash to his ex (for a divorce that he probably didn't even want and was still forced to pay for).
When they are with me, I house, feed and clothe them as does every other man who also has visitation, regardless of how rare it is. I support my kids, and all the other men with visiation support theirs. Trying to say that I'm not supporting them unless I'm also picking up her part of the tab is profoundly dishonest, and indicates you haven't really thought through what you're talking about.
no, wrong. read it again. I never ONCE said that a man should be obliged to cover all of his child's expenses. stop trying to incorporate your own damage because it's making you take this way too personally, when it wasn't intended to be at all.
btw - "all other men with visitation support theirs"? yeah? do you have proof of that? that's a pretty broad generalization right there. I would like to see the stats on that one. there are shitty fathers just like there are shitty mothers.
I guess that indicates you haven't really thought through what you're talking about.
I never ONCE said that a man should be obliged to cover all of his child's expenses.
Nor did I say you did. What I am saying is that your idea that a man has to give money to his ex to "support his kids" is ridiculous. Do you deny that is what you are claiming? I hope not, because look at your own damn words:
"...end child support? just an honest question here: wouldn't most men want to partake in and/or feel obligated to financially support their own child(ren)?"
When a man spends his own money on his own bills, and when he buys them food and clothes when they're at his house, he's supporting his kids. There is no need for him to give anyone else money in order to support his kids, because he's already doing it! Do you not understand this simple fact?
Now when they go their mom's to live in her house or apartment, eat her food and ride in her car, THAT is her financial responsibility. There is no good reason to also make that his fincancial responsibility. The two people are no longer together, and they lead separate lives. She certainly isn't responsible for cleaning his house anymore, so why is he responsible for paying her bills?
btw - "all other men with visitation support theirs"? yeah?
It is inherently obvious. Do you not understand that when kids stay with their father, they're sleeping in a house he paid for and eating food he bought?
there are shitty fathers just like there are shitty mothers.
No doubt. Forced child support only makes that worse. It does nothing to improve this.
Yes. I deny this is what I am claiming.
I deny this because my original question reads: ...end child support? just an honest question here: wouldn't most men WANT to partake in and/or feel obligated to financially support their own child(ren)?
there is a big difference between asking if someone would feel like they WANTED to do something, versus being FORCED to do something. my apologies if the "feel obligated" part threw you off (no sarcasm, I promise). I didn't mean it the way you interpreted it.
what about school and stuff? who should fund the child's education (assuming they don't attend public school)? again - I'm just asking real questions. I am not out to force my beliefs onto anyone, rather, I'm giving people a chance to teach me about their own perspectives.
No problem, sometimes there are misunderstandings in communication.
Noting your correction to me, it doesn't much change my response. A father who pays no one's bills but his own is supporting his kids, so there's no reason why he should feel otherwise if he wasn't also paying someone else's bills.
what about school and stuff? who should fund the child's education (assuming they don't attend public school)?
If both parents agree they can obviously split costs however they both see fit. If one parent makes a unilateral decision about sending a child to a private school (or anything else optional, for that matter), that parent should be responsible for the cost.
thanks for your answer! :) I agree with the part about the school. my uncle was forced to pay out of pocket for my cousin's private education, when he deemed it a bit unnecessary (they could have at least decided on something more affordable). but then again, his ex is/was crazy.
I'm avoiding the question?
Yes, avoiding the question.
I didn't realize this thread was specifically revolving around you and your situation.
Speaking about "me" is a rhetorical technique. It reminds you that the people you advocate making into indentured servants isn't some anonymous, faceless group of diosposable wallets, it is real men with real lives, men like me. When you have to tell me directly that yes, you want to make me a slave, at least then I know you've maybe thought about what you're advocating.
So I'll ask you again, why do you want to make me beholden to her, when she is in no way beholden to me?
this has to do with the kids. not her. I don't care to make you a slave, because that would require me giving a shit. I was just asking a fucking question. RELAX
this has to do with the kids. not her.
If that were the case, she'd be required to spend the money on the kids. She isn't. There would be oversight. There isn't.
RELAX
Easy to say when you don't have to worry about going to jail because you couldn't pay a bill. You did know that men who are required to pay CS have to worry about debtors' prison, right?
[–]Crimson_D822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That's the thing, it's not a choice.
[–]chrispdx2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I absolutely agree. Child Support in and of itself is not a bad thing, it is the inconsistent application thereof. It should never be used as a weapon and should regularly be audited to show that the money is being used directly for the care of the child. There should also be tax benefits for the paying spouse, such as applying the amount paid as a deduction in lieu of a child dependent deduction.
THANK YOU. so many people on the defense on here! I agree with you so much.
[–]chrispdx1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think in a perfect world, there would be a type of escrow account set up with the state, and the non-custodial parent would pay into it, and the custodial parent would be able to draw against it in the form of either pre-written checks to landlords, utility companies, etc. or a debit card which could be used for the purchase of food, clothing, and supplies for the child and would be regularly audited, and cash payments would not be allowed to be drawn against it.
My lunatic ex-wife once spent a month's child support I gave her on modeling lessons for a child from another man, and then I was expected to take my son clothes shopping because he had outgrown everything. I was furious, but I didn't have a legal leg to stand on because it is all at the discretion of the custodial parent. I suppose I could have made a stink about it in court but that would only make lawyers money, not me or my kid.
your idea sounds like a good one, but like you said, in a perfect world. almost like welfare but specifically for children from their parents?
I'm sorry about what your wife did. that sucks! :( I would have been pissed too. modeling lessons aren't a necessity. she could have at least asked you first, but I guess lunatics are called lunatics for a reason.
[–]bunker_man2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah. Posting things like this essentially seems to imply hurting kids to not have to feel enslaved to females is a good thing. Maybe "make child support more fair."
[–]CyberToyger1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So I'm just about to head off to bed; I took my Melatonin and I'm feeling pretty good, so I wanna leave a nice, civil reply to your post. :3
Assuming that the father and mother both wanted the child, but they divorced, and neither of them were crazy or greedy.. there'd be no need for Child Support since two adults who ended their relationship so amicably are capable of sharing/dividing the time they spend with their kid(s).
The only time I've really seen a father trying to avoid all contact and not bothering to support their kid(s) is either when the father didn't want to be a father in the first place, or, the wife is crazy and spends the cash on frivolous crud. So in this case, Child Support laws would be detrimental to the father and do next to nothing to help the kids. The same applies with the genders reversed; if the father spends the child support money on booze and crud, then the mother is throwing away money and the kids aren't benefiting in any form.
So what it boils down to, is that a parent who wanted to have kids will almost always want to still see/take care of them even after a divorce. The current problem is that the mothers are pretty much always given custody by default, especially when crazy mothers are involved who lie and claim their husband is abusive or neglective or an alcoholic. The father is then bound to paying Child Support instead of being able to take half responsibility and raise the kids an equal amount of time as the mother.
If we could fix the current system, get judges to stop being sexist against men, to get 50-50 child custody instead of one lying parent making the other look unfit and the judge caving in without even any hard evidence, then we'd find a very, very tiny portion of deadbeat parents, who wanted to be parents, of either gender. This tiny percentage, of parents who suddenly changed their mind and don't want to help raise the child they willingly brought into this world, would face a judge who would determine if they should pay for child support.
One idea would be for Parent 2 to match the monthly expenditures of Parent 1 (the parent with custody) on essentials, such as actual food (no candy, no junk-food), clothing (excluding expensive vanity/designer brands), healthcare related costs, and a few other things to a reasonable degree. It would be best if a committee of some sort, filled with people of various backgrounds, decided and agreed upon a set of standards on a per-city basis.
So in short; we need to fix the imbalance, we need to get rid of Traditionalism, we need Neutral judges. Allow both parents to have equal custody over the kid(s) unless one parent can absolutely prove that the other presents an immediate danger to the kid(s), and the tiny remaining percentage of parents (known herein as 'actual deadbeat parents') should be seen by a judge and their case individually examined, then either billed at the end of every month for their half of financial responsibility in raising the kid(s) or given the choice to step up and start taking care of the kids and putting a halt to the 'bills'.
[–]circuitology1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If this is the case, there is still no need for child support, at least not the organised extortion that the courts favour.
The problem is that child support isn't for the child. It's so the mother can have a quality of life she does not deserve at the expense of the man. There are no checks in place to ensure the money is being spent on the child, because all mothers are looking out only for their children, right? /s
that sucks, there should obviously be checks in place to ensure that. thanks for your answer
[–]factorygrrrl0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't want to pay for someone else's kids.
not really sure where "someone else's kids" got brought into this?
[–]factorygrrrl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If a parent squelches on their responsibility to their child or children, my taxes go to help bridge the gap.
[–]CosmicKeys50 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
4chan comment via image are better suited to /r/mensrants. You may as well just link to a random comment on reddit.
[–]racin36er21 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
i agree with this... i in no way agreed with my ex's decision to remove me from the family - nor do i believe it was for the best (that was over a year ago, and we're still "working on things." i firmly believe we would have had it all sorted out by now had she not done so).. i should not be financially punished because she made a decision affecting the entire family, without my input.... there is no way i'd have been able to kick her out. not that i ever wanted to, even though she was/has been equally as bad as i at times... not only would i never have done it (i meant "forever, through anything", she apparently didnt) - but even if i did, she wouldn't have been on the hook for anything.
but alas, i sit here writing out cheques to her - even though i do not agree with the family-ruining decision she made, with absolutely no input from me - even though it affects me. such bs... :/
[–]blueoak911 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Women's control of men's reproduction. And lives too - marriage is the only contract one party can abrogate without cause.
[–]Thievishmetal6911 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yea well...PATRIARCHHY..and stuff..
[–]Muffinizer1-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What (male) problem cant it explain and make completely irreverent to mention?
[–]Coldbeam16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Your question is flawed. Everybody knows males don't have problems /s
[–]justanothermra9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Uh, hi, I'm responsible for that image. I didn't think anyone would notice. Made what I think y'all call a throwaway. I haven't actually posted on reddit much, I just lurk.
It was late, in yet another men versus women thread, I think on /r9k/, after one of the feminists trotted out the usual bit on the kindness coins. I'm so sick of the kindness coins. It was a quick rant, but it is heartfelt.
Here's the thing: pretty much every objection you have to this ("well, not all women are ...", "don't you want to ...?") go for women and the kindness coins. Not all men expect sex from kindness, either. Not all women grudgingly dole out sex. However, the kindness coins trope simplifies away all of the nuance, making men who desire a relationship which is not one-sided into sex-begging whiners. So, if women don't want to be reduced to a nasty little trope, maybe women could just go ahead and not do that to men first? I don't actually expect that to happen, given that it's perfectly acceptable to make me into Schroedinger's Rapist. If you don't like being simplified, don't do it to other people.
Most men, I think, want to be equal partners, but we are denied that. We are ATMs, ready to dispense cash. Mother knows best. What do men know about raising kids, anyway? Meanwhile, we see women getting child support from fifteen year old boys they slept with, all in "the best interests of the child." Just a wacky idea, I think the best interests of the child would be ... not being raised by a rapist. Men are being put into debtors prison because they cannot afford some very capriciously-selected level of child support payment.
Alimony. Child support. Pregimony (yeah, they want to make that a thing).
I'm tired of being told, by feminists, that I've made all of the decisions I get to make by the time I ejaculate. Why should women get all of the choice and I have none? Why do I get all of the responsibilities and they get all of the rights?
I was talking to this guy, big feminist, social justice warrior type. He casually mentioned how terrified he was of sex on some unconscious level, because he had to be prepared to raise that kid or shell out for the next umpteen years. He's afraid. I said to him, "Maybe you need some rights, too." He didn't get it. Women talk and talk about how abortion and birth control mean that they are in control of their lives and their bodies. Shouldn't we have that, too? Should not both parties be able to walk away from a pregnancy?
Men need rights, too.
[–]ZeroError2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Schroedinger's Rapist
I like that one.
[–]CosmicKeys1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Glad you said /r9k/ and not /pol/.
[–]dysgraphia_add1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, /pol/ is just... eugenics is a bad idea.
[–]uncommonman7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I never understood how child support works in the USA, can anyone explain?
Do you stil have to pay even if you have joint custody?
[–]blueoak97 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Often, yes.
[–]uncommonman3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
But why, I understand if the wife did not work that she can have a hard time to find a job and provide for herself and the child but there have to be some conditions...
The condition is you have a penis, you pay. True about 90% of the time.
[–]seanicasxc3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The custodial parent receives payment from the non-custodial parent. The amount is usually per month and is (usually) derived from a percentage of the non-custodial's income.
Joint custody is not shield to child support payments - child support exists so that the child can as though the parents were together.
[–]AayKay1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Also if someone does answer this, what if the income of the woman is more than that of the man?
[–]uncommonman0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Exactly, often it sounds like the husband have to pay half the income he had when they were married.
[–]skankingsquiggle4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There's a formula the gov. goes on to determine the amount. What it is exactly I don't know but as long as people are honest about the monetary circumstances it usually works out. However that is not often the case and as the amount of wages the man garners increases past what the woman makes it grows disproportionately. I make a few grand more a year than my ex and pay about 20-25% in CS to her
[–]uncommonman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Okay, thanks.
I have 2 questions if you don't mind. Do you have joint custody (50% of the time) and who pays insurance and school fees?
[–]skankingsquiggle2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I do not have a custody agreement because my ex will not willingly enter into one so I'd have to fight her in court. I see my son every weekend which is the only time I actually can.
As part of my CS "agreement" I have to pay for insurance and my CS can be raised when he starts school or if he needs daycare. He's only 3 and we both have family willing to watch him so as of now that's a non issue.
Hope you get more custody later.
Bro hugs.
[–]skankingsquiggle1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Thanks bro. I'm fighting not for the rights of myself but for the rights of my son so that he will not have to fight a corrupt system and an ill tempered woman to see his children.
[–]LoveThemApples2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So glad you two can work things out like that i hate when the state gets involved.
It works but it's not 100% good. Since there is no set time when I get to see him it's completely at her discretion. Granted she's not as bad as some of the exes you hear about she will make it difficult if I don't do things her way. Holidays are also a problem, we've been split up for 2 years now and I haven't gotten to see him on the actually holidays when all my family would be there. I want some kind if agreement just so he doesn't miss out on half of his family growing up.
[–]LoveThemApples1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Most people who pay child support were never married though.
No, no. End alimony (or at the very least limit it to one or two years), legalize paternal surrender,reform child support. It's extremely important, especially if the father served a parental role in the child's life. It just shouldn't be 50% of income or some ridiculous number like that.
[–]mischiffmaker6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If ALL men could be trusted to put their previous family(-lies)' welfare on the same footing as their new(-est) family, then there would never have been a need for the government to get involved.
Don't forget the reason why child support is mandated. It's because too many men demonstrated they would stop supporting their children by previous spouses.
If you're not old enough to remember the days when this very thing happened--men conveniently forgot about the family left behind--then read up on it. Too often, just moving to the next county or the next state meant there was no enforcement--how do I know? I knew too many women left to raise children on their own through no fault of their own and no help from their ex-spouse. The advent of the internet went a long way towards tracking down "deadbeat dads (and moms!)."
"Oh, that's not me!" you exclaim. No? Then GOOD JOB! for you--you're adult enough to understand that child support is for the welfare of the child, not the ex-spouse.
And don't forget. Women, on average, still only earn $0.73 to every dollar men make. Not that the landlord, utility companies or retailers care. Prices are the same for both sexes.
HOWEVER: I'm an equal-opportunity child-support supporter.
If the man takes full custody of the child(ren), then damn right the woman should pay her fair share of child support. I don't see a problem with men having full custodial rights; it makes as much sense as the woman, particularly if the man feels he would do a better job as the custodial parent. Men, stand up for your parental participation!
Great statement and very good points except for one. The 73 cents for every dollar a man makes is a misnomer. That's an average among allllll men vs alllllll women. And its generally accepted that that is the case due to men being more likely to take high paying yet high risk jobs such as underground Cole mining, etc
[–]mischiffmaker1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The studies generally take into account the differences in types of work each gender is more likely to be able to take.
I don't have the link, but the study I looked at showed, by age range, the gender wage gap. Women's starting pay (at the beginning of their careers) is closer to the $0.73 range. Then it rises (as women presumably finish their college educations and start working in their chosen field) closer to $0.80. Then, as women near their 30's and the ol' biological clock starts getting louder, drop out of the workforce to have children and raise them, it drops back down again. By the time they're back in the workforce, the men who were their peers just out of college have moved ahead.
Most of the women I know were back at work as soon as they could be after having their babies, but their job choices were limited to those that allow them to also be the primary caregiver for their children. Those jobs, oddly enough, don't pay as well as "high risk" jobs--which would be poor choices for a caregiver parent of either sex.
This is a fact of life. I doubt we will ever get pay equity, and for some very practical reasons. Men don't give birth. Women do. But this society puts a rather low value on "women's work."
It's still not 73 cents on the dollar for the SAME work, which is the point they tried to make with that statement. The concept that women on average makes 73 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing different, lower paying work, really means nothing. If it was two people doing the same job then its a point but its not. It makes sense that someone swinging a pickaxe underground for 12 hours a day makes more per hour than someone who sits at a computer and types.
I'll let the US Dept of Labor explain it to you. (http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/ for the whole report.) Edit, it isn't $0.73, its $0.77, my bad
This is from their "Myth-Busting the Pay Gap" page:
"MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination.
"REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. Economists generally attribute about 40% of the pay gap to discrimination – making about 60% explained by differences between workers or their jobs. However, even the “explained” differences between men and women might be more complicated. For example: If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn’t we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity? As one commentator put it recently, “I don’t think that simply saying we have 9 cents of discrimination and then 14 cents of life choices is very satisfying.” In other words, no matter how you slice the data, pay discrimination is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange American women and their families."
Or you could visit the National Committee on Pay Equity's site which is working for equality for both women and minorities (yes, there are men who don't get equal pay, as well): http://www.pay-equity.org/about.html
"The National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE), founded in 1979, is a coalition of women's and civil rights organizations; labor unions; religious, professional, legal, and educational associations, commissions on women, state and local pay equity coalitions and individuals working to eliminate sex- and race-based wage discrimination and to achieve pay equity.
"NCPE's purpose is to close the wage gap that still exists between women, as well as people of color, and men. In 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was signed, women made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by men (based on Census figures of median wages of full-time, year-round workers). By 2009, women earned 77 cents to men's dollar, a narrowing of the wage gap by less than half a cent a year. Over a working lifetime, this wage disparity costs the average American woman and her family an estimated $700,000 to $2 million, impacting Social Security benefits and pensions.
"The wage gap exists, in part, because many women and people of color are still segregated into a few low-paying occupations. More than half of all women workers hold sales, clerical and service jobs. Studies show that the more an occupation is dominated by women or people of color, the less it pays. Part of the wage gap results from differences in education, experience or time in the workforce.
"But a significant portion cannot be explained by any of those factors; the General Accounting Office's Oct. 2003 report "Women's Earnings," which examined 18 years of data, found a 20 percent earnings gap between women and men that could not be explained, even when accounting for demographic and work-related factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure. This gap is attributable to discrimination; certain jobs pay less simply because they are held by women and people of color.
"Pay equity—evaluating and compensating jobs based on their skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, and not on the people who hold the jobs—is a solution to eliminating wage discrimination and closing the wage gap."
And, while women are attending college in greater numbers than men, it still doesn't close the pay gap (also from the NCPE site):
" According to the National Women's Law Center:
The wage gap persists at all levels of education. In 2011, the typical woman in the United States with a high school diploma working full time, year round was paid only 74 cents for every dollar paid to her male counterpart. Among people with a bachelor’s degrees, the figure was also 74 cents. In fact, the typical woman who has received an associate’s degree still isn’t paid as much as the typical man who only graduated from high school."
Seriously, what does a college-educated man do that his female counterpart doesn't? Neither one is working in a coalmine.
Still no part of this VERY long statement covers the point of my original comment which was...not 70 whatever cents on the dollar that a man makes. FOR THE SAME JOB. This...AVERAGES...across the board...so if you think its discrimination that someone in a "sales, clerical and service" job isn't paid the same as someone who performs a trade or a riskier position. Then yes, by your incorrect definition of what discrimination is, it's discrimination.
If Women only made what essentially breaks down to 75% of what a man made for the same position...WHY WOULD ANYONE HIRE A MAN?
The pay gap comes from what positions and priorities men and women both take when it comes to their careers. Its also explained by societal pressures for men to take riskier work or work with longer hours because society tells us that we need to provide for our families. Is this an antiquated notion? Perhaps. HOWEVER, in practice, those men who cannot provide are seen as undesirable, or worse yet, have their families taken from them, by women, who want to go find a man that can provide for her, regardless of her own financial stability.
TLDR: Didn't actually counter my point, and actually may have brought up valid points against your own argument. Solid C-
"If Women only made what essentially breaks down to 75% of what a man made for the same position...WHY WOULD ANYONE HIRE A MAN?"
They don't hire men...except men of color. And women.
"The wage gap exists, in part, because many women and people of color are still segregated into a few low-paying occupations...Studies show that the more an occupation is dominated by women or people of color, the less it pays."
TL;DR: Whatever, you obviously want to win, so ok, you win.
the ONLY rational post.
[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Alimony should be ended. I can get behind that. Child support needs to be reformed.
[–]DrunkRawk6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I consider this very poorly put. End alimony, yes. But end child support? Ridiculous.
How does garbage like this get upvoted so highly here? Speaks very poorly of the men's rights subreddit
thought this was /r/TumblrInAction for a second...
[–]Flamewall264 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah child support isn't always an evil thing.
[–]rawbface2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
My biological father wanted nothing to do with me once he found out my mom was pregnant. My mom raised me herself WITHOUT ONE CENT of child support. She was poor, had little family in the US, and her English wasn't great. But she eventually married someone else, moved to a better neighborhood, and now I'm a Chemical Engineer. I have the greatest respect for my mom and her determination to take care of me without his help, and I think she is a better example for gender equality than most feminists.
you are right she is, feminist these days wants rights of an adult and responsibility of a kid.
[–]ExiledSenpai2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
End lifetime alimony
FTFY
Here is my problem with child support:
A woman splits up with the father (not his choice) but he is a deadbeat, so she moves on. Props to her. She finds another guy, whos good to her, supports himself, and capable of a good relationship. They dont wed, but have a child. He supports both his child and the deadbeat dads child. He acts as a father to both children, they both call him Dad. The mother decides that she needs more money because the childs gameboys and brand name cloths are expensive (hes 3) so files papers for the first dad for child support. He wants nothing to do with the child, and the child has a "dad" but yet he still must pay. The state decideds all he can afford is $25/month. The mother gets pissed and bitches that he wont pay up.... My problem is that if someone else has accepted the responsibilitiy, then why should the mother get double support? She left knowing he could not /would not be a father.
TL;DR: If the mother can successfully move on with her life, and the child has all his needs met + extra, why does she need to file support. She left, not him.
[–]Geno7772 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In addition to your problem, I have another problem... in reverse
A man splits up with the mother (not her choice) but she is a deadbeat, so he moves on. Props to him. He finds another gal, whos good to him, supports herself, and capable of a good relationship. They dont wed, but have a child. She supports both her child and the deadbeat moms child. She acts as a mother to both children, they both call her Mom. The father decides that he needs more money because the childs gameboys and brand name cloths are expensive (hes 3) so files papers for the first mom for child support. She wants nothing to do with the child, and the child has a "mom" but yet she still must pay. The state decideds all she can afford is $25/month. The father gets pissed and complains that she wont pay up.
1) Ain't no woman finna raise another females child.
2) Aint no man gonna complain to the courts about not getting enough money [98% of the time]
3) Deadbeat moms get the Pussy Pass.
4) The rarity of this reversed gender scenario points out the inherent misandry of the family court system.
5) I've had women that wanted to have my baby in the past, but I will not sire kids in a misandric Matriarchy like america.
You are right. Most dads would just be happy to get the kids and not push their luck or drag the issue out.
I agree that alot of the time women abuse the free cash from child support. But sometimes they don't. My mom disnt make my dad pay the full amount ordered by the court because her and my step dad both worked. Don't get it wrong he did pay every month though.
[–]HalfysReddit1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
IMO, if you consent to the creation of the child, you consent to supporting the child.
I'm all for ending child support when the man is manipulated into having a child against his will (such as holes in the condom, not taking birth control and lying about it, etc), but it seems sort of cowardly and selfish to think that you can consciously introduce a life into this world and then not take any responsibility for it.
Good luck ever proving those things lol.
You know what I would love? For a reliable lie-detector to be designed. We could fix so many problems with the justice system.
[–]cbih1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
We're quoting 4chan now? Gives real credibility to this subreddit...
[–]HokesOne-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
ITT: People who still don't understand that child support payments are far less than it costs to raise a child and who still don't understand that child support is designed to support the child they participated in making
Oh please - who are you to tell a bunch of fathers what we understand and don't understand? Really, what do you know about any of this?
Agreed. That man/woman/thing even openly claimed that he/she/it has no children. It's just pulling factoids out of itsass, and then getting all riled up imagining itself to be some modern day crusader.
[–]squirtlekin5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Sometimes they are. Sometimes they're $400,000 a year:
[link]
Child support payments shouldn't be enough to raise a child, anyway. Or does the mother not have any financial responsibility?
[–]HokesOne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Far less as in far less than half. Which means the custodial parent is responsible for being the primary caregiver and primary financier. It should be one or the other.
Edit: also, are you really trying to tell me that Tom Cruise is an ideal poster child for your 'movement'?
I think what it shows is the concept of child support isn't based on what it costs to raise a child. The fact that Cruise is even required to pay that much is a great example of how far the irraionality and unfairness of the system can get. Child support I think should be a thing. It's the implementation that is at fault, and there are indeed a great number of faults.
"Does the mother not have any financial responsibility?"
Average monthly cost for daycare (usually needed if the custodial parent is working) $972.00.
Average monthly child support payments: $350.00 month.
Yea, I'd say the custodial parents have financial responsibility.
[–]gnovos1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
they participated in making
Bold, huh? Did you know that "participating" in making a baby requires less planning and forethought than signing up for a World of Warcraft account?
Who cares? You can't duck responsibility just because you don't like it.
if you don't want children, practice safe sex and only sleep with people who share your desire not to start a family. It's not that complicated
[–]squirtlekin4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I note that this is the same argument used against abortion.
No because abortion is a contraceptive choice and is a layer of a broader safe sex and family planning strategy. Just because men can't force women to have an abortion doesn't mean they are being oppressed.
Edit for clarity: it is part of practicing safe sex, not something separate.
[–]gnovos4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm telling you that your reasoning is insufficient, not that you are wrong. There are actually good reasons to want to take care of your children, reasons that can be supported by argument. "You did a thing once for five minutes, thus you should be responsible," isn't a very strong argument. If it were then it would apply to other things, too, and not seem completely crazy. For example, if you date a girl (or guy) for five minutes, are they then obligated to marry you if you demand it? The reason you think your argument is strong is that you are blinded by the "think of the children" emotional message. In reality, though, you don't have an argument, but a moral judgement.
[–]prussianiron3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Only 5 Minutes? Slow down there tiger, geeze.
If you drive for five minutes, do you go to jail? No.
If you drive for five minutes and fatally strike a pedestrian, do you go to jail? Yes.
[–]gnovos5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah, that's my point, man. Did you pass your sex-ed test to get your license to have unprotected sex? Pass your STD background check and have to wait a five day mandatory waiting period?
Dude, think about how crazy those things sound. They're not even slightly reasonable, and yet asking for the same things of fairly "trivial" activities (like driving a car or buying a gun) doesn't seem all that strange, does it?
Vehicular manslaughter and pregnancy aren't the same level of an event. Getting pregnant is literally something you can do in your sleep... And to make matters worse, there is an impossibly strong biological pressure to have sex (and particularly unprotected sex) that actively works to erode willpower.
Placing righteous moral judgement on people in this modern society who have unprotected sex and unintentionally get pregnant is equivalent to handing a glass of water to a man dying of thirst in the desert and demanding that he drunk it while holding a gun to his head threatening to kill him if he refuses and then being really, really upset that he did.
I'm not saying that there is no responsibility, nothing even close to that. I am a single father and am responsible as shit towards my daughter and her mom, and I LOVE IT. I literally cannot give them more of my financial resources because the mom feels guilty and refuses to take as much as I try to offer. I have no qualms with paternal responsibility.
What I disagree with is the premise that it's ok to "blame" people for having sex, as though their inability to withstand 4.3 billion years of finely calculated evolutionary pressure somehow invalidates their moral compass and they now deserve some sort of comeuppance.
Use better arguments in the future and you'll get your point across in ways that win people to your side. I'll wager most of those "deadbeat" fathers most likely do truly love their kids, but just may have financial, mental and self-esteem hang ups that are getting in the way. Give them a reason to be responsible, not just punishments for non-compliance, and I think you'd get the outcome you're looking for and nobody needs to feel attacked.
Good luck living in fantasy world, child.
[–]MRB20121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Under US law the sole authority on bringing the child into the world is the mother. As she is the sole decision maker it makes no sense to hold the father accountable for her decision. If you accept Roe v. Wade then there is no reason for you to think child support is a good idea. Karen DeCrow, the former president of NOW, has admitted this.
If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.
Let me guess, that's just her internalized misogyny talking?
Says the person without any children, and who has no fucking clue what he's talking about.
[–]Lecks-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
child support is designed to support the child they participated in making
Then it's design is flawed because currently whatever support it grants children comes at the cost of fathers.
Also, consent to sex does not equal consent to parenthood. It doesn't for women and it doesn't for men.
"To support the child they participated in making" is a useless statement if you're trying to explain why fathers should be required to pay for children they may or may not have wanted and may or may not be allowed to even contact.
[–]mischiffmaker2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I hate to break it to you, but the actual biological function of sex is ... that's right, to make babies!
Contraception is nice, and usually works, but it is no guarantee. Both partners need to be aware, before the sex, exactly what their bodies are thinking! ("WOOHOO EGG HERE I COME" "WOOHOO SPERM"S A'COMING, GET READY TO CATCH!"--actual thoughts of sperm and egg on collision course.)
[–]Bhorzo0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
People have sex for reasons other than just to make babies.
And the biological responsibility of men to a woman and the child ends once conception takes place. Yay, biology answers everything!
Explain why a man should be forced to give up anything, to anyone, for a child he can't or won't raise just because he had sex with the child's mother.
lol, my original comment was just commenting on the biological reason we are impelled to make whoopie.
But ok.
Biologically, it's his genes being passed along to another generation. He has a vested (if sometimes limited) interest in his own procreation.
From an evolutionary standpoint, humans found that cooperative parenting provided the best way to ensure those new genes reached adulthood to reproduce the next generation.
From a societal standpoint, men who procreate but don't participate in caring for the resulting little humans put a burden on everyone else, who then have to take up their slack.
From an emotional standpoint, because it's his kid. But if he's lacking in basic empathy, that might explain why women initiate divorce proceedings more than men do. ;-)
[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So wtf am I supposed to do with all these kindness coins?
[–]choada7771 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Throw them away. They're worth less than a $3 bill...Actually, maybe see if you can redeem them at some recycling center for another form of currency.
[–]ShellywellyJelly-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
ah lads
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]duchess_jackanapes120 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Quiscalus69 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DorkJedi63 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]30 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DorkJedi51 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IameAuhSomme1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DorkJedi2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Quiscalus10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Alaric20004 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DorkJedi17 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ordinaryrooster-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DorkJedi8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Johnthereader3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DorkJedi5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ordinaryrooster0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DorkJedi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ordinaryrooster0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DorkJedi3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]hounvs24 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SpiritofJames9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]hounvs8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak915 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]_SharkWeek_3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SpiritofJames1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]_SharkWeek_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman13 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sidwood7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sidwood3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]sidwood2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale43 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Mizzet25 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]meeeow7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]meeeow2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Mizzet2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]meeeow1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]seanicasxc2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]seanicasxc4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]trollwnb-7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]electriophile5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale13 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nancyfuqindrew2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nancyfuqindrew1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nancyfuqindrew2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nancyfuqindrew2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]seanicasxc0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ZeroError3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]seanicasxc1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]seanicasxc2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]seanicasxc1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]seanicasxc1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]seanicasxc1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]altmehere16 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]RavensHonor16 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_14 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_20 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Volkrisse8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]fokm8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]stopsayingfaggot3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]fokm6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theskepticalidealist9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]fokm9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]fokm4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]altmehere2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theskepticalidealist5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theskepticalidealist1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]UnapologeticMonster4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deansdale3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]electriophile7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]gnovos2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NotARealAtty8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NotARealAtty7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NotARealAtty2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NegativeZEN16 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]alaysian14 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Greyfeld4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak94 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak91 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]selfsufficientnigga3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]selfsufficientnigga0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]selfsufficientnigga0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Drainedsoul10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes-9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Drainedsoul12 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pizzashooz2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes-5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]doctorhillbilly19 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]11 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Bhorzo1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak95 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bridgecrewdave2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Bhorzo1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bridgecrewdave1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Whisper7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]justanothermra7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theskepticalidealist3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]borderlinebadger3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak92 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Crimson_D822 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chrispdx2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chrispdx1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bunker_man2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CyberToyger1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]circuitology1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factorygrrrl0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]factorygrrrl1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys50 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]racin36er21 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak911 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Thievishmetal6911 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Muffinizer1-5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Coldbeam16 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]justanothermra9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ZeroError2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dysgraphia_add1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]uncommonman7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak97 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]uncommonman3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]fokm8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]seanicasxc3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AayKay1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]uncommonman0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]skankingsquiggle4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]uncommonman2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]skankingsquiggle2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]uncommonman2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]skankingsquiggle1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LoveThemApples2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]skankingsquiggle2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LoveThemApples1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]electriophile7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mischiffmaker6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bridgecrewdave2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mischiffmaker1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bridgecrewdave1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mischiffmaker1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bridgecrewdave1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mischiffmaker1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]_SharkWeek_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DrunkRawk6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Flamewall264 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rawbface2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]trollwnb-7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ExiledSenpai2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LoveThemApples2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Geno7772 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LoveThemApples1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HalfysReddit1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]bridgecrewdave2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HalfysReddit1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cbih1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blueoak95 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]squirtlekin5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theskepticalidealist3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mischiffmaker1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]gnovos1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]squirtlekin4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]gnovos4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]prussianiron3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HokesOne1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]gnovos5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MRB20121 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lecks-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mischiffmaker2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Bhorzo0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lecks-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]mischiffmaker1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted]-2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]choada7771 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ShellywellyJelly-6 points [recovered] | Copy Link