From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:38:59 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

I wrote:
>> I hope one day people will learn to hate sexist attitudes
>> such as yours.

sue bishop wrote:
>Exactly where do you see 'sexist'?  She offered him joint custody.  He didn't
>want it.  He also doesn't want to pay ANYTHING, not even the court ordered
>child support.  
>
>Sheesh!  Ask more questions, if I don't make myself clear.  Don't just jump
>to conclusions!  

The 'sexist' was more with regard to your general statements
than your example, since I have no independent source for that.
However I'll tell you where I think you're sexist and you can
tell me why you think I'm wrong to think you're sexist.

>>>> The financial rape occurs as a result of a large number of scumbags who
>>>> couldn't refrain from spreading their seed but refuse to take financial
>>>> responsibility for their actions.

>> In article <1992Sep9.063605.3983@desire.wright.edu>
     sbishop@desire.wright.edu wrote [reformatted]:
>>>My sentiments exactly!  I know lots of men who have been good fathers, 
>>>paid their support payments and then some, had shared or even full custody.
	[...]
>>> then there's my sister and her ex-husband, they had
>>>joint custody of their son, he was always great about the
>>>child support payments

Sue's idea of a good father is someone who has joint or full custody and
pays their ex-wife child support + more.

Isn't there something wrong with that picture?

Sue agrees that men who don't take financial responsibility
(meaning pay support) are scumbags.  Yet female NCPs are as
bad or worse at paying support than male NCPs, but Sue
doesn't apply the same logic to them.  If CPs spend less
money on their children than they are deemed to by the
court, are they scumbags as well?

The unjustified restriction of these complaints to men NCPs
(and men CPs) shows the underlying sexism of the complainers.

Sue continues:
>>>I also know more than a few who refuse to pay any support at all.  One woman
>>>I work with has two adopted children, her ex-husband (who left her for another
>>>woman) makes very good money, more than she does, has the children every 
>>>weekend and as often as possible during the summer.  He also refuses to
>>>pay her ANY child support and changes jobs every time she is able to attach
>>>his wages.  (He's a nurse and this is easy for him to do.)  It's men like
>>>that who give the rest of the fathers a bad name in court.  

As I have said elsewhere, if he has them during the summer
she should pay him child support then.  But, like almost all
ex-wives, she probably doesn't pay him ANY child support. 

In article <1992Sep11.191620.4066@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>Considering that she has the most of the financial burden,
 [...] provides the house that they live in 80% of the time, [...]
    I don't really see
>where you are coming from.  All the adoptive father is out, is some food
>on weekends and what ever entertainment and transportation he is out for
>the times they visit.

Presumably he makes them sleep in the street his 20% of the time.

My problem is not with your example - since I can't verify
it anyway, but with your general position.
'where I am coming from' is that you feel free to generalize
that men who don't pay support are scumbags, but you don't
even bother to ask whether women are paying support (usually
they are not).

>the times they visit.  Also considering his income is MUCH higher than hers,
>she's the one who is out the most expense.

It looks like you think support should be related to
income, but I must be mistaken since earlier in this
thread, Mr EuStress  -  the one you think is a scumbag
for not paying support  -  said:

	"My children" (as you are wont to call them) 
	live in a home that makes about $70,000 per year 
	-- I make about $4,000 per year.

If I were uncharitable I might think you were being hypocritical.

>> Isn't it strange that fewer mothers pay child support to the father
>> than vice versa, yet it isn't the women who get the 'bad name'.

>Well, if he had primary custody, then it would be needed for her to pay
>child support.

Perhaps.  You avoided the question of why you think
men who don't pay support deserve a bad name,
but women (who are about as bad) apparently don't.

Give me a straight answer: If women NCPs are less likely
to pay support than men NCPs, does that mean women are
scummier on average than men?

>                This is not total shared (50/50).  He has access to the
>kids as often as he wishes.  Unfortunately for the kids, he doesn't take
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>advantage of it very often and refuses to contribute anything at all to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>very necesssary expenses of raising, housing and educating them.

(Re housing, see my earlier point.)  Earlier Sue had said:

>>>woman) makes very good money, more than she does, has the children every 
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>weekend and as often as possible during the summer.  He also refuses to
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Funny how the facts change when you want to make a different point.

>Sue

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights