From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:46:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bv8rou.2LF
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep27.055748.22337@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
>In article <Bv700u.5Jn@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep26.062058.6404@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
>> >In article <1992Sep14.155912.8637@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>> >> In article <1992Sep13.232121.6139@pensoft.uucp> jac@pensoft.uucp (James A. Carter) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> 	If I buy a hamburger, I expect to eat it.  If I buy clothes
>> >> 	I expect to wear them.  More specifically if I buy my kid a
>> >> 	toy, I expect to watch them play with it.
>> >> 
>> >> 	But out of sight is out of mind.

>> >It seems to me the answer must be obvious to the first poster and
>> >oblivious to the second, that we do these things for our child, not
>> >for ourselves.
>> 
>> I spend money on my son for him +and+ for me.  I'm sorry you don't
>> get so much out of parenting.
>
>I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of irony.  My point is that
>food is for the person who eats it and clothes are for the person who
>wears them, not their parents or the people around them.

I disagree, with "not their parents...".  I don't fit into size 2T
but I buy it just the same, for my son *and* for my enjoyment.

Personally, I would continue doing so even if my child were gone,
because I would still get a tiny minimum of pleasure out of knowing
that my child were eating/wearing/playing-with something I had gotten
him.  But I understand how that tiny minimum might not be enough
for everyone -- especially those who *cannot* see their children.


>Should she go hungry because
>I don't "get something" out of her eating?  Of course not.

>> >Out of my sight doesn't mean she doesn't eat or need clothes or shoes
>> >or dental and medical care.

Who suggested that she go hungry?  I would suggest that if you 
were not permitted to see her because someone else had forcibly
"taken the reins," then *that person* ought also to take the 
responsibilities of meeting her needs.

If that person *can't* meet her needs, then that person ought
to make her available to you for you to establish a solid and
enjoyable parental relationship, which will not only provide
her with what she needs but provide you with what you need as well.


[tragic possibilities and the choice to have children]

>It was thoughts like the
>above that caused me to put off children for several years.

If men put off children because of thoughts that they would be 
systematically prevented from enjoying their children (and forced 
nevertheless to pay), there wouldn't be any children.


>Believe
>me, there are worse things in parenthood than having your kids live
>in a different state, like not having them alive anywhere at all.

Of course there are worse things.  But that doesn't mean that
being forced to pay for a child that was forcibly taken from you
and whom you are not allowed to see (or only under difficult and
strained circumstances) is acceptable.

CP's (including parents in unbroken couples) ought to understand 
that part of the price of enjoying one's child is bearing the
responsibility for meeting his/her needs.  Take the child away,
take the responsibilities away.


>> >We pay big bucks to be parents, and diapers, school fees, clothes,
>> >food, or whatever you're giving to this person aren't free just
>> >because you all live together.  
>> 
>> No, but when you live together, you reap the benefits (clean, healthy,
>> well-fed, warm children).  When you live in another state, you reap
>> a bill.
>you, you, you.  What about your kids? Does it ever occur to you that
>they are reaping the benefits (being well fed, clean, healthy, warm)
>of your money, or doesn't that matter? Is it all the same to you
>whether they starve or eat, as long as you don't have to see it?

I haven't seen any reason to believe that the children will starve,
as you keep suggesting.  To *me*, it is not all the same.  

Is it all the same to you whether your children ever see their 
father again?  To some CP's, it is all the same -- and worse, 
some try to *prevent* the NCP from reaping the benefits.


>The thing that bothers me about this whole discussion is that it seems
>to be centered on what people need from being parents.  What about
>what kids need from their parents?

The question of "best interests of the child" is discussed ad nauseam.
What about the question of what rights parents have, especially to
the rewards of their work and their love?


>  I became a parent because I wanted
>a certain experience, but I didn't have the illusion that I could send
>this kid back or get out of it if I didn't get the experience that I
>wanted.

You became a parent, I would guess, without any fear that a sexist
system would strip you of your children (with nontrivial probability)
and force you to pay without giving you contact.  

I don't see how rejecting payment-without-contact is even remotely 
equivalent to "sending the kid back" like an unwanted pair of socks.


>The statement that most closely expresses my attitude about parenting
>is:
>
>1) as a parent, I have obligations to my children to take care of
>their needs
>
>or -
>2) my children have certain obligations to me to take
>care of my needs and desires
>
>I pick #1, what about you?

My attitudes aren't expressed very well by multiple choice, thank you.
#1 is a subset of my beliefs, but it has quite different interpretation 
depending on whether the obligations are moral or legal, and depending
on whether I am discussing personal beliefs or what I think everyone
should accept.


>Thank God (or whatever expression of relief/thankfulness/satisfaction
>that you prefer) that my parents and many other parents in this world
>do not abandon their children, either emotionally or financially,
>because they don't get what they want out of being a parent.

Saying that men who complain about paying and demand the rewards
of their efforts are "abandoning their children because they don't 
get what they want out of being a parent" is as bad as saying women 
who have abortions are "killing children without a second thought, 
just for their convenience."

Sensitive, caring and responsible men can reject the notion of 
being forced to pay and prevented from enjoying their children.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky misc.kids:24483 alt.sex:30946