From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Anti-Male Defenders
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:17:39 CST

In article wcs9wB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca, lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca () writes:
>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 Hennepin County, Minnesota, the Task Force for Gender Fairness in the
Courts cites a statistic that 84% of divorces are filed by women. The
children are awarded to women overwhelmingly, even when factoring in 
contested custody as well as the presumptive 'fact' that contesting
custody is an extremely expensive endeavor with a probability factor
of 1 in 10 for men to 'win' sole custody. The law profession bases it's
advice and work on this fact because the their overwhelming experience
with reality suggests it is in the best interest of their client. It
also makes it much easier to collect reasonable fees of uncontested,
uncomplicated divorces (most people don't own enough property and assests
to fill a small size filing cabinet) from men who will lose a significant
amount of disposable income. Statistics back this up. (In Henn. Co., 8% of
the all divorces are contested. Typically, a divorce is very cheap in
uncontested divorces. It insures less work and quicker payment to ze lawyere?
The 'ultimate' in revenue enhanced law practices. Contested divorces
are messy, dirty, cheating, mean, disgusting, because the outcome
historically has been for the courts to award sole custody to one of the
parties. My favorite line from my divorced attorney was: "Unless you
have pictures of her sticking dildos of cocaine up the children's asses, 
you best shut the 'bleep' up about contesting the case. I'll need a 
ten thousand dollar retainer." He was right. His next biggest job
as 'counselor' is to convince the poor s.o.b. (me) that 'this is the
way it is, there is little you and I can do to change it. My advice is
to find a nice cute doll, bang her at your leisure and have a little
fun." end quote.
 Indeed Lisa, the statistic (80+%) does not indicate what percentage
of these divorces involved assholes. The practice of the courts suggests
over 90% must be. The media, academic elite, 'feminism' (sorry Bob, it 
exists), pop psychologists and counselors (the under skilled reconciliatory
kinds) perpetuate the myth that men are incapable of fathering adequetely.
Domestic abuse seminars, order's of protection, dead-beat dads, child
abuse and impoverished single women with children are subjects that have
overwhelming been exaggerated in order to perpetuate myths, retain the advantage
of family court judgements, secure government entitlements, pass unconstitutional
legistlation (OFPs, hate crimes) and a host of other agendas that deflect
responsibility from the individual and place solutions in the form of
government spending. Men who run out on their families or men who self-
destruct and bring harm to their families deserve no respect, help or
sympathy. Same for women. Unfortunately, our overwhelming tendency to
protect the idiots from themselves at the expense of society has led
us to a nation of 'victims', a subject that is not new, but it is
nonetheless absent in government bureacracratic solutions. 
 If my brother ran off with the 'red headed flame' and left his family
behind (as I have known someone to do), this brother (or son for that matter)
would be living a life of fear. Not from the government, but from me. He
would either come back and make his family whole again, respecting his
wife, honoring his commitment to his children, live up to his responsibilities
as a man or I would beat the living hell out of him to within an inch of
his life. If he died. So be it. I would do all I could to assist his wife
and family. Government had best stay the hell away.   
>
>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 do not want a system of government, representative government, that is
based on solving every damn social problem by attempting to engineer, make
fair, or produce trends that do more harm than good. 
Double standards exist when the children's defense fund type groups 
propose ending child impoverishment by approving sole custody only, 
advocate personal responsibility and have their collective paw out 
begging for assistance to assist single parent families as if living
with children is de-facto a right to live happily ever after. 

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

 Two income, two parent families are tough. What makes the 'elitists' think
it is supposed to be as easy or possible (in some cases) alone?
Answer me that.
What makes it societies responsibility to bail anyone out, when the 
person who is in trouble has, in TOO many cases, screwed up their life
after having been given umpteen (excessive) chances? We are one of
the few nations on earth that can weep over the death of a convicted
serial killer, rapist and child molester. We have a moral obligation
to help people. This moral obligation has been replaced by our
government. The government is failing in its quest to help, solve
or do just about anything. Notice how our schools have replaced
teaching morality with altruistic government solution based, ethically
bankrupt education schemes. You see it would offend someone to teach
them anything that might be construed as religous, (right from wrong
kind of stuff), when anyone who has ever studied religion [judaism 
christian, catholicism, protestantism, luther, Hindu, Buddha, Islam,
Mohammad, etc) knows that their are more similarities in their 
"moral teaching" than there are differences. Actually, someone
who has read and studied religion has a greater awareness of the
differences and similarities between societies and peoples than
any narrow minded zeolot in acadamics today puking out "diversity'. 

 Sure we need to help people. Just when is this sort of help going to
stop. When were bankrupt? When we start killing each other over 50 bucks?
Maybe we should redefine what a victim is instead of developing history
classes that portray world historical transgressions that need to be
remedied by passing innane solutions that do more to divide us as apposed
to studying ways that make us similar. (I sight the gay rights type 
legislation in Colo. as an example. By classifying people (gays), writing
specific laws to protect 'them', we are systematically SEPERATING them
distinguishing them as 'different'. This alienates. It doesn't work.
It alienates those who probably didn't know they had any 'significant'
differences from the minority, but now have every understandable reason
to say, "what the hell makes THEM so special.... to hell with 'em".

Lisa, no-fault divorce was a change in the system. They didn't change
the divorce system. 

>
>It's just that
>> the no-fault system has led to a lot of divorces
>
>....like there weren't a lot before?
Nope.
>
> 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).

 Not in Minnesota in Wisconsin since 1987. Rules have changed. 
>
> 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...
 
 In two income families earning 40 grand or more a year, the support
guidelines make divorce extremely easy to financially obtain and maintain.
(the dollar amount will vary for different areas of the world,country)

>
>> 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.

 Freeze the sperm, then vasectomy. This way a man regains some financial
control and removes any doubts towards deception on either party from
claiming birth control when there is not, it makes the condom's failure
rate concerns moot. 

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

 Don't worry 'bout me babe. Save it for your ex.

>
>Lisa
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.child-support