From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: FEMINISTS ARE UGLY!
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:19:37 CST

In article 6419@desire.wright.edu, sbishop@desire.wright.edu () writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.141411.13699@walter.cray.com>, jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>> In article 6405@desire.wright.edu, sbishop@desire.wright.edu () writes:
>>>
>>   The MAIN reason for child support is
>>>to try to approximate that the child does not suffer a huge change (for the
>>>worse) in lifestyle due to the divorce.  THis means if the child was 
>>>provided a certain standard of living before the divorce, it should not
>>>then be dumped into total poverty after the divorce.  Evidently you really
>>>don't understand the logic behind child-support payments.
>>>Perhaps you should read about the recent court case where the millionaire
>>>father was forced to pay the court ordered HUGE amounts of child support,
>>>even though the mother had a very nice income, because the court said that
>>>the money had been provided the child before the divorce, it must still be
>>>provided after the divorce.
>>>Please note: I do think the child was living a totally ridiculous lifestyle..
>>>
>>>Sue
>> 
>> 
>>  Sue, when women (the majority who file for divorce are women, it doesn't
>> say why I'll grant you, but the majority are women) divorce today, they
>> know damn well that they are in all likelyhood going to get the kids and
>> they know damn well they are going to be "provided a certain standard of
>> living". 
>
>This is really not true in a lot of cases.  I know quite a few divorced
>women, most of them are working women, trying to juggle a job, a home
>and their kids, quite a few of them also offered their ex-s joint custody
>but they refused it.  Yes, I do know there are women who take advantage
>of the divorce situation.  But when you check the statistics, and see
>how many women are worse off AFTER they divorce than they are before.....

 How bleapin' much sense does it make that ANYONE (other than a feminist)
would believe they would be better off after a divorce? I would contend
that the prevailing "attitude" in academics, psychology, counseling and
pop-culture writings have clouded the realities of life. Just as T.V.
commercials have skewed reality to enhance their product, so has the
popular feminist rhetoric, social policies written by naive feminist
theorists. The "new" thinking suggests that NOBODY should be victimized, 
especially children (women) of divorce. Tell me, how can it be otherwise
unless of course you extract a disportionate amount of cash and sympathy
from society and ex-husbands?
 
>
>>  Why should kids be sheltered from Mommy's choices? Why should they be
>> sheltered from reality? 
>
>So the kids should be punished because their parents got divorced?  
>Sheltered from WHAT reality? 

Of course kids suffer from divorce. Not all children, some suffer emotionally
less than others. What da #$%# makes you think that children wouldn't
suffer? The feminist answer and other misguided boobs is that it is 
an NCPs obligation to "maintain the standard of living" for the kids sake,
and societies obligation also. NCPs are asked to sustain lifestyles of
children of divorced parents, without accounting, without regard to the
children's emotional wellbeing and irregardless of a women's (MOST CASES
HONEY) obligation. She can do what ever she likes; quit work, move to
Timbukto, .... The NCP is subject to rules and laws that essentially make
him a work/slave to the state, (a group of feminist led pussies that believe
this is his ONLY obligation).
  
>
>>  If the economic well being of children was the state's BIGGEST concern, 
>> why in heaven is the state awarding custody to a gender overwhelmingly
>> when many of the men make more money? Why does it cost men far more to
>> retain their children than do women? 
>
>I do think that in quite a few cases, the father makes just as good a
>CP as the parents.  My sister and her ex had a very amicable divorce after
>the first few months of shouting and fighting.  They have always been
>very good about joint visits, their son lived with BOTH of them, turn
>and turn about, my sister had primary custody but her ex had him as much
>as possible, for weeks on end when ever school permitted.  He paid a fairly
>small amount as child support, she never went for an increase since they
>both were doing the best they could for the child.

 She has no obligation (other than a personal moral one) to be amicable.
In fact, any GOOD attorney will encourage this behavior AFTER she has
removed the man's balls, wallet and heart. Upon the decree becoming final,
she is then only morally obligated to be..... reasonable.
 Many non-feminist women see it this way.  Non-feminists have not
divorced their head from the heart because the word victimization exists
only for victims (divorced women especially).
>
>>  When homes are handed over to women, custody is awarded de facto to women
>> and child support awards are written to continue the children's living
>> standard as if the parents had not divorced, I don't believe for a millesec.
>> that feminists are nearly as interested in children than they are 
>> at retribution for past evil deeds by men. This rewriting of world history
>> and anthropology by American Feministas is a joke. The feminist is
>> only interested in perpetuating a family court system that has 
>> systematically transfered the greatest amount of wealth from one group
>> to another our society hasn't seen since the rise and fall of the 
>> third Riech. This transfer of wealth has not guarenteed the living
>> standards of children, it has only weakened their chances of success
>> and emotional well being. Our schools are filled with emotionally
>> crippled children. You know some of them. 
>
>Yes, I do know quite a few emotionally crippled children, most of the ones
>I know have been abandoned by BOTH their parents.  The two girls I am 
>volunteer court advocate for were in their father's custody, he moved his
>new girl-friend in, she threw the daughters out on the streets, first the
>older one at age 13, then the younger one a year later at age 12.   Their
>mother was more of less no help at all, she had married at 16 and never
>finished school, had no job, no way to keep her daughters (and I don't think
>she tried very hard at all either). 

 Abandoning responsibility has excelerated with the advent of feminist
victimology and their preponderance to seek government solutions.  
>
>>  Historical revisionism is the style and substance of 'Women's Studies".
>> This disjointed group of academic elite from eastern established colleges
>> where a year's tuition exceeds the blue collar workin' mans yearly income
>> (you can't add health benefits, most rural midwestern working men never
>> had health benefits) is a joke. These spoiled academic brats have no
>> understanding of history or life. They're scholarship is based on pop
>> theories and half-baked plagerised Rolling Stone opeds. Feminism has 
>> ignored history.
>> It is self evident in their facist beliefs in powerful governments to
>~r> squelch liberty for THIER agenda. 
>> 
>>  Good bye f{_eministas. Your days are numbered. Your whiny, spoiled, brats,
>> totally dependent on Daddy and Mommy to pay for your tuition. You've
>> never worked a day in your life. Hardship is defined by revocation of 
>> your personal 800 telephone number. Hardtimes are defined by having to
>> walk to your Miata at the airport. Depression is rampant, not because
>> of some personal tragedy or pressure, but because the girlfriend broke
>> up and returned to her boyfriend which ruined your Swiss skiing holiday.
>> 
>
>>  Feminist's are adult children.
>
>Bull!  I know quite a few feminists, I consider myself one.  I've never OWNED
>a Miata, am quite likely old enough to be your mother, have worked very hard
>all my life, never attended any Eastern University.  In fact, I finally 
>graduated Summer of 92 after working my way through college over many
>years of part-time schedules. 

 The feminist ideology was and is directed by people that I described. Your
desire to call yourself a feminist that doesn't match that discription
doesn't change my idea of who the origins of such a selfesh, historical
revisionist, pop-culture crap filled drither like feminists.

>
>>  Feminist thought belongs on Sesame Street.
>
>Bull!  The feminists I know have one major thought..... equal pay for equal
>work.....  I've worked all my life in a field that was dominated by men
>when I first got into it (computers).   I currently am working with men
>half my age who get the same pay as I do, yet I have five times the 
>experience. 
 I believe in equal pay for equal work. Reality says it doesn't exist.
 Why do you choose to look at your work as dominated by men? It's irrelevent.
 Christ, men have dominated work (outside the home, working for a 
 nice fellow or asshole) for a hell of a long time. Men therefore understand
 that inequity comes with the territory. Read about life experiences.
 Pay inequity has and will always exist, unless of course you work within
 the government. 
 Why is it that you would also presume that experience equates into more
 production? It doesn't always work that way.

>
>>  Feminisism is led by Gonzo historians whose acid tripped thinking
>>    is making them a laughing stock world wide. 
>>  Feminism makes Gloria Steinhem marry rich and write books about self
>>   esteem. She wouldn't know self esteem if it #$@%#@ her in the #@$.
>> 
>
>And you have absolutely no idea what feminism is.....  
>
>Sue

 Probably so. Neither would you. Thats half the problem, isn't it?




Newsgroups: alt.child-support,sci.psychology