Well put.

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:

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.

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

[–]seanicasxc2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seanicasxc4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trollwnb-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]electriophile5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Greyfeld3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nancyfuqindrew2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nancyfuqindrew1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nancyfuqindrew2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nancyfuqindrew2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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!

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seanicasxc0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZeroError3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seanicasxc1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seanicasxc2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

[–]seanicasxc1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

This is dumb for policy reasons alone. “No fault” divorces are a wonderful thing. Instead of both parties baiting the other into grounds, they can simply agree it isn’t working. Second, most states have a catch-all ground. My state uses “inappropriate marital conduct.” In my state, yelling at the other spouse satisfies this ground.

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%.

[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

(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.

Undeniable evidence? This is a higher standard of evidence then criminal trials.

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.

[–]seanicasxc1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

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.

No one offers incentives for divorcing. The pot is always smaller after a divorce. Children shouldn't have to bear the consequences of divorce.

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.

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.

[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

Want to help men's rights? Stop posting. Its dumb arguments like this that hinder MR more than anything else.

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?

[–]seanicasxc1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]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

[–]RavensHonor16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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

[–]HokesOne-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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

[–]stopsayingfaggot3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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

[–]theskepticalidealist9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fokm9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fokm4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]altmehere2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnapologeticMonster4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]electriophile7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gnovos2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Greyfeld8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Greyfeld5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotARealAtty8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotARealAtty7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NotARealAtty2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NegativeZEN16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]duchess_jackanapes-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Greyfeld4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blueoak94 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blueoak91 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]selfsufficientnigga3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]selfsufficientnigga0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]selfsufficientnigga0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Drainedsoul10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes-9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Drainedsoul12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pizzashooz2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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.

[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bhorzo1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blueoak95 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bridgecrewdave2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bhorzo1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bridgecrewdave1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whisper7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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.

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]borderlinebadger3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blueoak92 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

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.

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chrispdx2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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.

[–]duchess_jackanapes0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bunker_man2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]factorygrrrl0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duchess_jackanapes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]factorygrrrl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys50 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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

[–]Thievishmetal6911 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Muffinizer1-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Coldbeam16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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

[–]CosmicKeys1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dysgraphia_add1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]uncommonman7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blueoak97 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]uncommonman3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fokm8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seanicasxc3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AayKay1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]uncommonman0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skankingsquiggle4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]uncommonman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skankingsquiggle2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]uncommonman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skankingsquiggle1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoveThemApples2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]skankingsquiggle2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoveThemApples1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]electriophile7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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!

[–]bridgecrewdave2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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."

[–]bridgecrewdave1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mischiffmaker1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

[–]bridgecrewdave1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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-

[–]mischiffmaker1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_SharkWeek_1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrunkRawk6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamewall264 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rawbface2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trollwnb-7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExiledSenpai2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoveThemApples2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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.

[–]LoveThemApples1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bridgecrewdave2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cbih1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blueoak95 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]squirtlekin5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mischiffmaker1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gnovos1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]squirtlekin4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gnovos4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]prussianiron3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HokesOne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]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.

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20121 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

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?

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lecks-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mischiffmaker2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bhorzo0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lecks-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mischiffmaker1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]choada7771 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShellywellyJelly-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Comments

1. You don't sound like a man in your writing.

2. You didn't site your source.

Title	Well put.
Author	dysgraphia_add
Upvotes	1177
Comments	280
Date	March 12, 2013 4:49 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1a4q32/well-put/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/well-put.1608050 https://theredarchive.com/post/1608050