Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Anti-Male Defenders
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:20:31 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
> > 
> > >  If women seek divorce for no other reason than unreconciable differences
> > > why are they intitled to receive a disproportionate benefit of a doubt in
> > > receiving custody, child support and property? 
> > 
> > Your point is a good one, but your wording leaves a little to be desired.
> > I am wholly supportive of "no-fault" divorce. One partner, wanting out, is
> > all it should take. No reasons --just "the bonds of the marital relation-
> > ship are irretrievably broken." If people don't have to have a trial to
> > get married, why on earth should they need one for divorce? Sure, some
> > arbitration so that the assets of the MARRIAGE can be equitably divided.
> > Each takes what they brought, and each takes a proportional share for the
> > contribution they make. (House wife/husbands contribute!!!) But get per-
> > mission from the state to separate? Give me a break.

> children, the state has systematically placed the burden on men. They
> discourage joint physical custody, create guidelines that in principal
> and practice discriminate against the NCP by placing the burden of maintainin
> the childrens standard of living on the NCP (usually men) and then 
> proclaim that irreconcilable differences and their consequences be shouldered
> primarily by one of the parties. 
> 
>  How difficult of a "choice" is their in divorce proceedings when the
> person claiming irreconcilable differences is assured of a home, the children
> and a preservation in standard of living? 

Jeez, Jon, what leads you to your apparent belief that its always the woman
who is initiating claims of "irreconcilable differences"?  Besides, even
were that always the case (which it isn't), no one is "assured" of anything
in reality.  Court orders are hard to enforce, even when they're more than
reasonable, if one or the other party refuses to comply with the order.  In
Canada anyway, I'd say most, if not all, court orders aren't worth the paper
they're written on, if the NCP decides to deliberately default on CS, or the
CP denies court ordered visitation/access.  Ask the male CPs on this net if
they felt/feel "assured of a home, the children and a preservation in
standard of living"?

In an adversarial divorce few are "assured" of anything but grief, at least in
the immediate.

(deletions)

>  I have irreconcilable differences with people who believe in so-called
> fairness. I like to point it out.

Sigh...I don't understand your attitude here, Jon.  What do YOU want? More
inequities?  We may not have all the answers, but most of us here are making
genuine efforts to find and implement equitable solutions that'll work for
everyone, as much as possible, and *AS MUCH AS PEOPLE WILL ALLOW THEM TO*.


>  I'll grant you and Lisa that not all CPs are winners.

Thank you.

It's just that
> the no-fault system has led to a lot of divorces

...like there weren't a lot before?

 and a system that
> pins the financial responsibility on one of the parties.

Sometimes.  From what I can determine, the financial responsibility is more
often shared, though granted, not always equitably (and that can be said for
both men AND women, CPs *and* NCPs).

 In two income
> families where both parties earn equal amounts, the current law incourages
> irreconcilable divorces, if you catch my drift.
> 
I'm not sure I do...

> Marriage does require state involvement Bob. That is why in this day
> and age, males should be duly forewarned. It is much wiser to stay single
> than it is to get married today. It is the wise man who gets a vasectomy
> as a single young man today. These truths are illustrated by our 
> law practices in the good ol' USofA.

And I should have had my hysterectomy BEFORE I had two fabulous daughters
with my ex, so I wouldn't have to deal with his subsequent bitter, miserly,
deceitful and irresponsible ways in actively seeking to impoverish me in
every way he possibly can, even at the very real expenses of his own children?
Canada's courts have repeatedly proven totally impotent wrt enforcement and my
ex jeers at the whole works.

I love my kids.  They are well worth the stresses and griefs, even those of the
divorce/post-divorce traumas and trials.  Besides "wise man", if all young men
had vasectomies before siring any children, you wouldn't get your revenges for
long, would you?  After all, no kids, no women, no race.

If I thought it would help, I'd pity you.

Lisa

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!