From: gayle@disk.uucp (Gayle)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:11:58 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>Personally, I would MUCH rather stay home with the kids and have
>my wife earn the money.  Society and the courts have a different
>opinion about men staying home.  Even if a woman +does+ earn more,
>she will not be forced to work and pay the father to stay at home,
>especially if there are small children involved.
>Try applying this argument to show that women OUGHT to stay at home
>in broken or intact marriages.  Do you like the result?

No one HAS to stay at home, some just prefer the security it provides the child.
And, in all families I have known, more often the child goes to the mother
for comfort than the father. It is a matter of choice andin some circumstances
the wellbeing of the child..


>. having an antagonistic person take your money and decide 
>  just when you can see the persons you most love

*I* have never had any choice as to when my ex could see the children. The LAW
decided when he could, otherwise he has nothing to do with them - by his choice.
I HAVE offered visitation at any point in time that he desires, all he need do
is call. I have even offered to his family - only to hear that it is *MY*
responsibility to call THEM. I have even had recommendations from a counselor
recommending NOT extending counseling, yet the courts did it anyhow. It 
doesn't seem to matter to the courts that my ex insults, degrades and yells
at me every chance he gets, in front of the kids. None of that matters - he
has RIGHTS because he's their father.


>  grow distant because of the above-mentioned antagonistic person.

There is *NO* (none) reason for one parent to influence the child towards 
another. It will only backfire on that parent in the end. My sons will
find out about the type of father they have on their own. However, should they
ask me questions, I will not lie. Absence does NOT make the heart grow fonder,
if you miss your kids and see them alternating weekends - do you call them 
the other times that you aren't there?

>Do you hate men?  Or is this just more anecdotal experience?

I do not hate men. I dislike irresponsibility. Immensely. And hypocrisy.
I REALLY want to understand if you all DO have a real problem, it IS hard
imagining being away from my kids. So - maybe there are fathers that are daily 
thinking of and missing their children. If so - my heart bleeds for you, I 
can imagine how painful that can be. But - have you tried your best to share 
things with your child, do you call and talk to them the times that you don't 
have them? If a kid only sees you every other weekend for a short time, then
of course they wont be as close - they wont hardly know you. Until they are 
older isn't it your responsibility to keep in touch with them?
 As bad and violent as things were with my ex, if he were to call and say he'd
like to see his kids I'd meet him anywhere. Anytime, as long as the interest wasgenuine and I wasn't insulted the whole time.


>I want my children to have a home, and I want it to be my home.
>I do not want to be judged a lesser parent because of what is 
>between my legs, and I don't want that to be the basis for
>my having to support another home.  Nor do I want to be the
>deep-pockets for unreasonable State decrees that specify exactly 
>what a child's lifestyle should be, but only when a male wallet
>is present.

It is not always a MALE wallet. If the situation went to court and the woman wasemployed at a rather well paying job and the man was unemployed - it WOULD
be the other way around. But this just does not happen much. Be it old fashioned or what, the woman IS more often at home than the man. 

>I am sorry to hear your story.  It seems, though, you are taking
>it out on all men.  Keep in mind, +you+ have held all the decision-making
>power (whether you believe that is right or not).  As for looking at your

Thanks for the thoughts, but *I* have held NO power and am not trying to take
it out on all men. The judge has been God of my life lately - and lawyers, and
lawyers, and ....

>son in court, perhaps it is just too painful for your ex?  Perhaps he 
>loves him but would break down if forced to face these emotions in public, 
>especially where he is being subjugated in front of his child?

Oh come on!!!!!! This man has NOT even ASKED about this childs health for 
the past 8 months and all of a sudden he has a burst of emotion? I think not?
He cares so much about this child that it doesn't matter to him whether 
medical prescriptions are bought or not? After asking him if he would
*PLEASE* pay child support so I could buy Josh warm clothes and Jarrod school
clothes (it was cold a few weeks back), the man laughs and says it's not
his problem!!!!!! Yet this has no bearing on his RIGHTS with those kids.
What about the kids rights when they don't want to go.
 I'm not trying to stereotype anyone here. BUT when all *I* hear is fussing
about "paying" - then I read it, I tend to wonder what exactly is going on?
How my ex can say he cares, but doesn't seem to give a damn about medicene
for the kids and stuff like that is beyond me. So I have to wonder how it
is on the other side. How can things like that be begrudged? Yes - I *DO*
understand that he feels when he sends child support he sends it to the kids
but begrudges the fact that *HE* can't control whether any of it is spent on me.Damn, think I was rambling there - sorry.

>Would you give your son to your ex and pay him for it, 

Sure - if he could learn how to breastfeed. :-) Seriously no I would not.
He has proven uncapable of caring, even for a short time, for them. I could
NOT give up my children, unless it were in their best interest. If I knew
he would be better for them, I think I could do it. But, if he DID have them,
I would be calling them regularly visiting them regularly - whether ordered visitation or not. Anything to let them know I WAS still a part of their life.
To know I am always there for them.

Gayle
m
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.  - Shakespeare
  What's black & brown and looks good on a lawyer?     A doberman :-)
                        - gayle@disk.uucp -
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights