From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:58:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.220444.16141@disk.uucp> gayle@disk.uucp (Gayle) writes:
>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>>got off the phone with a guy who was talking with a woman about going
>>out (as in dating).  She told him that she didn't have any money to go
>>bowling with him because her child support check hadn't showed up.
>
>Did you ever stop to think that maybe all of the money SHE could have earned
>could have been spent on food, medicene, diapers or ANYTHING for the kids?
>That she has evidently used all her resources to provide for the kids while
>the father was obviously negligent in sending support?

This is a very good point.  But things go downhill from here.


>If a woman is not trained in a field where she can earn higher wages, then how 
>can she possibly earn enough to cover all expenses when SHE works. Would you
>fuss if you were responsible for daycare while she did work, or would you rather
>pay for the other items?

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?


> My one question, how can men fuss soooo much for paying, when they say they
>care for the child so much? Seems rather contradictive to me. Money IS a fact 
>of life, but it seems to me (from personal exp. again I can't judge for everyone) that men think of divorce as an "abandon decree." A decree to do what you
>want to, whether or not it affects the children. 

I'm glad you stated this was anecdotal, otherwise it might seem
pretty man-hating.  Many men think of divorce not as an "abandon decree"
but as an "exile decree."  You don't seem to have tried to imagine
a man's position in depth: consider 

. losing your children
. having an antagonistic person take your money and decide 
  just when you can see the persons you most love
. having society tell you you are an insensitive monster 
  for complaining about this situation
. having to deal with the salt-in-the-wound agony of regularly 
  "visiting" and giving your children up --- and watching them 
  grow distant because of the above-mentioned antagonistic person.

NCP women are equally guilty of failing to pay.  Perhaps this is a
+human+ reaction to an unjust and excessively painful situation?


>Because it seems in a divorce, if you dont point out EVERYTHING a man HAS to
>do, they'll weasel out of it. 

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


>Don't you want your children to have a home?
>If they can't receive the best emotional nurturing, etc .. from you then you
>would just as soon they not have a home? Intact families usually don't HAVE
>to be told anything, they can decide that on their own. 

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.


>>Based on my current child support payments, I will pay $187,000 in
>>child support over the next 15 years.  That figure doesn't include
>
>Isn't this probably lower than the amount you would pay were you still
>married? I mean, vacations, toys, etc ... ?
>But you're just fussing because YOU aren't getting it?

No; if it goes to the children, that's fine; if it goes to the ex-wife
and her retirement investments or vacations, it is simply WRONG.  
Why should a man pay an ex-wife as though they were still married?


>>P.S.  A man recently told me that one of his tenants had blown him off
>>on the rent this month - claiming that she hadn't received her child
>>support check.  Why can't she earn enough money to pay her rent without
>>someone else's check?  And if she can't support herself and a gaggle of
>>children, why is she the custodial parent of those children?
>
>Well, *I* have had the same problem. *I* was unable to pay my rent due to
>the fact that I have not received child support. *I* cannot work outside
>the home now because my youngest child (10 months) has medical problems.
>YET, MY ex refuses to pay all the back "maintenance" he owes because he
>feels I should go out and work. Due to the fact that I lost a son last year,
>and my youngest now is having medical problems _ I trust no one with him, and
>would be unable to afford the care for him while I did work. This medical
>problem, fingers crossed, should be "conquered" within the next 6 months, but
>it seems my ex just doesn't care what happens NOW. Well, I want my son to
>LIVE. Why doesnt HE (ex) seem to think of that also, instead of the money.
>Yet he says he "loves" the kids. Though not once in the past 8 months has he
>inquired to his well being, doesnt even look at him when were in court.
>This is fatherly love? If so, then this is the exact reason these kids are
>better off with the mother.

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
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?

Would you give your son to your ex and pay him for it, 
if he wanted to stay at home?

>This is fatherly love? If so, then this is the exact reason these kids are
>better off with the mother.

A self-fulfilling prophecy: put a person in slavery, s/he rebels,
and you say it is proof that s/he is uncontrollable and should have
been in slavery to begin with.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3196 soc.men:16463 soc.women:16630 misc.kids:23524 alt.dads-rights:2278