From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: It isn't slavery
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 11:56:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.183755.19136@nsc.nsc.com> jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
>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


	This point is very well made.  But I still have to argue the
	exact opposite stance for two reasons.

	1) There is a thing called freedom and privacy which people
	cherish.  There is no way that society has the time, the desire,
	or the resources to accomplish the noble task that you suggest.
	Support issues involve collectable money.  That is the resource
	that fuels *that* effort.

	And just for the record remember/realize that the *ONLY* reason
	for the current vigilante attitude toward child support is
	MONEY!!!!!  It is marketed with stuff about "the good of the
	children", but if $$$$$$$ wasn't involved, the truely nobody
	would give a shit.  Any more than they give a shit about the
	people's private lives you refer to above.

	2) It is the child support system that's screwed up.  That
	is what should be fixed.  Two wrongs don't make a right.
	The attitude that ex's/kids somehow deserve a guaranteed
	meal ticket that the rest of the world has no guarantee about.

	I am just coming out of a rather serious layoff threat.  This
	has aged me several years inside of one.  It is because I know
	that if I can't "hold my own", that I not only am going to
	go down the chute financially, because of child support,
	but that the "can of worms" will get opened.  I pay $40/week
	now.  Imagine.  Get layed off.  Have to go to court.  Get
	reassessed PERMANENTLY.  Have no money, and have my obligations
	go through the roof based on what I *USED* to make.

	My family has NO guarantee.  My ex supposedly does.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......