From: murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:26:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

The following post really ticked me off, as I'm sure it did many of
the other NCPs on these groups.  I'd like to say something really
nasty to this person but I'll restrain myself and operate on the
assumption that this person might be vulnerable to reason despite
evidence to the contrary.

In <1992Sep13.220444.16141@disk.uucp>
gayle@disk.uucp (Gayle) writes:

>Did you ever stop to think that maybe all of the money SHE could have 
>earned could have been spent on food, medicine, diapers or ANYTHING 
>for the kids?

   In my case "all of the money SHE could have earned" is as hypothetical
as your conjecture.  She refuses to work despite an earning capacity
almost equal to mine.  See my reply to Aaron's original post.

>That she has evidently used all her resources to provide for the kids 
>while the father was obviously negligent in sending support?

   Bullshit.  The first is not evident and the second, as Aaron pointed
out, is not obvious.  No negligence has been shown, or do you consider
my employer 'negligent' because they won't give me my paycheck earlier
than scheduled because I've spent all of the last paycheck?

>I know, it's grasping, but I'm so sick of men fussing about money, are 
>your kids not worth it?

   It's more pathetic than grasping, IMO.  My X2B makes the same
complaint about 'men fussing about money'.  If I wanted to make a
similarly stupid, sexist remark it'd be something like "One of us has
to excercise some financial responsibilty and we're stuck with the job
because the little lady has abdicated it."

>If a woman is not able to support herself currently do you think it 
>wouldn't bother her...?

   It doesn't seem to bother my X2B, at least not enough to DO anything.

>...but the kids must come first.

   Yeah, my X2B and her lawyer continually chant the mantra of the
'best interest of the children'.  Look, I can take care of my children
AT LEAST as well as their mother.  There's no household/childcare task
she performs that I haven't done as well.  There are plenty of tasks
I perform that she's incapable of or refuses because of gender stereotypes.  
Why not give custody of the children to the parent who's more responsible 
and a demonstrably better provider?


>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. 

   If she can't take care of herself what in the hell leads anyone to
believe she's qualified to take care of the children?

>Would you fuss if you were responsible for daycare while she did work, 
>or would you rather pay for the other items?

   I'd love it if she would go back to work.  And no need for daycare,
I can take care of the children.  I'd gladly take a second job and work
myself into an early grave to pay for her to go back to school or pay
her alimony if I got custody of the children and she would otherwise 
GROW UP AND GET THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE!

>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. 

   Evidently that's because you haven't been paying attention.

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

   Your post was, IMO, already pretty irrational and sexist but this is
the acme.

>Don't you want your children to have a home?

   Aaron already pointed out that we do, OUR HOME.

>If they can't receive the best emotional nurturing, etc .. from you 
>then you would just as soon they not have a home? 

   Here's the basis of the problem.  You seem to imply that your
genitals automatically qualify you to provide 'the best emotional 
nurturing, etc'.  Sorry, lady, it ain't necessarily so.  It may be true
in your particular case but it's not true in the general case and it
certainly isn't true in my case, IMO.

Aaron points out:
>>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?

   Why don't you try renting a clue?  I'm forced, AGAINST MY WILL,
to support a second household I can ill afford.  Every penny I spend
on this second household is money that CAN'T be spent on the children.
I tried reasoning with my wife, we were barely getting by with only
one household to support.  But she, who insists she has only the best
interests of the children at heart, asks the court to order me to
vacate my own home which the court DOES completely ignoring the 
recommendation of Family Services, which the court ordered us to seek,
that there was NO REASON whatsoever to have me vacate.

   Here's two scenarios for providing for my children, which one do
you think makes the most sense?  (No need to guess which one the court
implemented.)

A: Parent #1: refuses to work, refuses to allow the other parent
   visitation beyond the 'standard' minimum, refuses to responsibly
   make financial plans and expects parent #2 to be a bottomless
   well of money in spite of simple arithmetic.

B: Parent #2: Works full time and has for over 20 years, asks NOTHING
   from parent #1, CAN care for the children if given custody in spite
   of having to work, would be happy to allow parent #1 as much
   visitation as desired, would be willing to help parent #1 financially
   to go to back to school for a new career or while job-hunting.

   So tell me, Gayle, which you think is the better choice and why?

   You probably sense that I'm angry.  Well I am, and I have a feeling
you would be too if you were on the other side getting reamed by the
system.  You may be angry too because your ex may be a jerk but to 
extrapolate from that that all men are jerks is silly.

                                      
                                       Gerry Murphy
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids