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 10:54:26 CST

In article 1386@blue.cis.pitt.edu, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.155702.17044@hemlock.cray.com> sga@cray.com writes:
>#Sue:
>#
>#What Jon is saying is that child-support has become de facto alimony. 
>
>[rest deleted]
>
>I think what Jon is saying is that he hates women.  (Since he also hates
>gay men, it makes me wonder if his incoherent posts are caused by
>sexual frustration, but that's neither here nor there.)

 My distaste for feminism and deep lack of respect for their logic and
ways of equality does not equate in any dislike of women. Some women
I love, some women I like and some women I know I do not like nor
respect. Same for gays. 
 Politically speaking, civil rights only divides society by highlighting
our differences. It seems only common sense to me that all minorities, 
women?, blacks, indians, gays, white guys who can jump, children born
with crack addictions, etc. should strive to highlight our similarities.
For this is what bonds us and heals differences that will always exist.
A democratic society dependent on government to redefine social 
contracts (respect for one another) is doomed to failure. I can no longer
respect a feminist whose idea for equality is a quota system than
I can respect a thief. I don't care if the thief happens to be
white, black or gay.

>
>I have a great deal of sympathy for NCP's who are asked to pay
>support while being denied visitation, and for NCP's who are
>being asked to pay amounts they cannot afford.  I have no sympathy
>for those who want their children to grow up in poverty because
>they're angry at their exes.  People who argue against support
>because they fear that their ex will be in any way better off
>because of it fit into the latter category.
 Today, thanks to feminist logic and apologists that make public policy,
write laws and review court procedure, sympathy is all an NCP gets
for denied visitation. 
In Mn as in most states, Child support is based on an NCPs income.
They are written so that the custodial parent, (women) maintain
a standard of living at the expense of the Non-custodial parent. 
If the roles are reversed, a women NCP not only would not be required
to pay child support, she would be the recipient of money called
"maintenance". 
 I dislike the child support guidelines. There're based on a fairy tale
world (socialism), enforced by a government system (totalitariasm) and
supported by victimologists (feminists).
 Your last two sentences are foolish. As a feminista, you always presume
that the mother's single motherhood condition was done nobelly, that
she and the children would be better off without the ol' man. I would
never presume this for all cases.
 I do not fear my Ex having it better, what I object to is the real
possibility that I am contibuting to her lifestyle and not my children.
It's child support honey, not spousal support. 
 When I ask feministas in the Mn legislature why I cannot receive account-
ability, she automatically jumps to my side about "government interference".
You see, feministas are two faced. It's perfectly alright for the gov.
to automatically garnish wages for ALL NCPs, but it would be government
intrusion to ask how the money is spent. 

>
>Btw, NCP's did not start refusing to pay child support in the '80's
>because of the recession.  It's been going on a lot longer than
>that. 

 Yep. So what. Only an idealist with her head smothered in a female condom
would think it's going to change with draconian child support laws aimed
directly at men.
  
>
>Susan


Jon   Don't hate ya darlin', just littl' respect for yer theories.

      
You wouldn't be surprised at all if I told ya I ride Harleys, smoke cigerettes
and frequent biker establishments on summer evenin's. Hell, I don't
wear a helmet, whether I'm riding my FXSTC or the ol' lady.





Newsgroups: alt.child-support