From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: It isn't slavery
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:37:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <1992Aug13.135043.5501@practic.com> brunner@practic.UUCP (Thomas Eric Brunner) writes:
>I wrote in reply to mike@fionn.lbl.gov that what ever his/her personal
>feelings about paying a support award, that it wasn't slavery. In fact,
>I couldn't believe that a US national or resident alien could be so
>removed from the collective memory of the Civil War/War Between the
>States.
>
...esoteric discussion of "what's slavery" deleted...
>
>Finally, not being able to communicate with all the soc.* dingbats and
>crockpots is a blessing, not a curse. The bigest problem with a.c-s
>before soc.* discovered it was BobK's "don't criticise social workers"
>fixation, and the periodic crock by jcr@milton.u.washington.edu, and
>the idiotic "tick tock" trailers-as-messages by a person who apparently
>needs to be net-noticed. That was quite a bit preferable this flood of
>opinionated drivel (since 3 August).
>
>899:From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
>900:From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)

(About 200 more lines like the above 2, from people who have corresponded
on this thread, deleted...)

Eric,

I have to wonder at your use of the word "drivel" to describe a thread that
has generated at least 200 messages, by your own record-keeping.  That level
of traffic on a subject would seem to indicate that at least *some* people
take it seriously.  I don't think anyone was referring to slavery in the
traditional sense of "ownership" of another human being.

Maybe you wouldn't object to the phrase "economic slavery".  The fact is,
that's the way it *feels* to a lot of people who are suffering under a load
of economic deprivation enforced by the courts, a load *NOT* imposed by
society on married parents.  There is no minimum level of support any married
parent is required to provide, other than that required to maintain life.
The mere fact of divorcing (or not having been married in the first place)
creates a sub-class of people that society then forces to pay (frequently
onerous levels of) support.

I'm not suggesting that children should be abandoned.  I pay significantly
more than my court-ordered support level, voluntarily, because I choose to
put my son in a private school.  My ex does not contribute toward that,
except for his uniforms and lunch expenses, but that's OK - that's what
she's capable of providing.

What I don't understand is why society accepts married parents not
providing anything besides mere subsistence for their children, if that's
what they choose to do, when divorced/unmarried parents *are* forced.  If
we're truly concerned, as a society, about the welfare of children, then
let's enforce rules that say married parents also should be required to
provide certain minimum levels of support for their children.  And oh, by
the way, let's not forget to set up the bureaucracy that would be needed
to enforce that.

Rather than suggesting in any way that children should not be supported
by their parents (of whatever marital status) at decent levels, this is a
not-so-tongue-in-the-cheek jab at society as a whole for the hypocrisy
evidenced by this situation.  There's a not-so-subtle value judgement
being used here:  if you're married, then you're a "good person" and we'll
look the other way, mostly; but if you're divorced or an out-of-wedlock
parent (father usually, in both cases) then by God and all that's Holy,
you're gonna PAY!!


Jerry Roe		National Congress for Men
			FREE
			National Council for Children's Rights
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,sci.skeptic