HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:49:30 GMT
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <robert.716515375@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
>
>	What doesn't seem to be taken into account is that the same amount of
>income is now required to support two homes instead of one.  Obviously, you
>cannot maintain the same standard of living for everyone under those
>circumstances.  Everyone's standard of living must go down under those
>circumstances...unless, of course, the person who earns the most money gets
>the children.

I don't understand why the person earning the most money gaining custody 
wouldn't change their standard of living.  When I got custody of my 
daughter, I was the person making the most (only) money in my household.
However, the loss of my ex-husband as the household care-taker caused 
me to either have to pay money to replace the service (daily child-care),
take on the extra chores myself (cooking meals daily, laundry, etc.), 
or simply let it go (the newspapers and magazines piling up as visual 
remainders that the housekeeping has degraded).

Taking all the advantages of marriage into account, not just the monetary
benefits, divorce will degrade all parties' standards of living, regard-
less of who does or does not have custody.  In fact, I think this 
single fact should be drummed into the heads of everyone and anyone 
who would contemplate a divorce and everyone and anyone who is 
contemplating marriage.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:44:20 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridan

In article <1992Sep12.213902.18527@wam.umd.edu>, lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat) writes:
>It turns my stomach to see how many fathers there are who stick the mother with  
>the child(ren) and go live another life.  It's disgusting.  And then they ask  
>for father's rights!  That's bullshit!  They had not only the right, but the  
>responsibility of taking care of their children!  They want everyone to know  

To most of us (obviously not including EuStress), the term "father's rights"
means getting the right to be a father to our child(ren). Fathers in general
do not "stick the mother with" them. Rather, a rubber stamp judicial system
forces the fathers out of the child(ren)'s live(s) - except for the all
important wallet role.

The fathers did indeed have "not only the right, but the responsiblity", but
this was removed from them - against their will.

I would love to have my son live with me. However, his mother wants him to
live with her. Therefore, he will live with her - by judicial decree. My
wishes do not have any bearing on the matter. This is what it's all about!

-- 
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat)
Subject: Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:56:41 GMT

In article <22911@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael  
Stemper) writes:
} To most of us (obviously not including EuStress), the term "father's rights"
} means getting the right to be a father to our child(ren). Fathers in general
} do not "stick the mother with" them. Rather, a rubber stamp judicial system
} forces the fathers out of the child(ren)'s live(s) - except for the all
} important wallet role.

Fathers in general DO "stick" the mother with the children.  And the judicial  
system is not as "rubber stamp" as you think it is.  Whoever is deemed more fit  
to raise that child gets the child.  Finances are very important, but I don't  
think that just because a father makes money that means he can raise his  
children.  And would you say most divorce happens because things "just don't  
work out" between the parents, or are there things like extra-marital affairs  
involved?  And is that parent going to be deemed more fit than the other?

} The fathers did indeed have "not only the right, but the responsiblity", but
} this was removed from them - against their will.

No, most fathers take the opinion, "well, if I don't have custody, I don't have  
the responsibility."  Which is bullshit.  It still your fucking child, whether  
you have the "relationship" you want or not.

The fact is, I don't feel sorry for most "fathers" who cowardly find ways of  
avoiding the support of their children.  There are simply no fucking excuses!

Donald
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3175 soc.men:16384 soc.women:16555 misc.kids:23333 alt.dads-rights:2263
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:29:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.144930.24097@news.nd.edu> slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>Taking all the advantages of marriage into account, not just the monetary
>benefits, divorce will degrade all parties' standards of living, regard-
>less of who does or does not have custody.  In fact, I think this 
>single fact should be drummed into the heads of everyone and anyone 
>who would contemplate a divorce and everyone and anyone who is 
>contemplating marriage.

And most of all, judges and legislators.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3209 soc.men:16486 soc.women:16655
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Rights
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 15 Sep 1992 20:32:56 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
-
-I wrote:
-     "Why are Male rights evil while Female rights are moral?"

  I have wondered about this myself.  I have a couple of guesses about this
and would be happy to be agreed with or contradicted.  But if the latter,
then hopefully in an informative manner!

When the Titanic was sinking, preference was given to women and children for
lifeboats and men who tried to get into lifeboats were ordered out at
gunpoint.   The hands that held these guns were the hands of other men.

When the ERA was being discussed, senator Sam Erwin said that he could
support it if it did not also grant equal rights to men.

It was Lyndon Johnson, a man who sent several million American men to
Vietnam, including 58,000 to their deaths.

More women are killed by men than vice-versa, but more men than women
are killed by men.

I have a guess that an impulse to protect women and children is built
into men.  maybe someone who knows biology better than me will be
able to say something about it.

At election time, women tend to vote according to women's rights issues.
Men tend to vote on issues like, "shall we bomb the hell out of Saddam
Hussein?"  So each sex gets what it wanted.

Freud is called a chuvinist because he said,"anatomy is destiny", but
did  he mean to exclude men?  It seems to me that men do extremely
foolish things out of some kind of compulsion.  Just think of what Mike
Tyson has done to himself.  I know we are supposed to feel sympathy
for the girl that he raped and of course it must have been a frightening
experience for her.   But surely what he has to go through now is
far worse.

I remember reading about a leopard who was approaching a troop of
baboons.  Two male baboons climbed up on a rock under which the leopard
was passing and jumped him.  The leopard immediately dis-embowelled one
of the baboons but the other managed to sink his teeth into the leopard's
neck.  The cat was badly wounded and retreated, sparing the troop.

What did the male baboons think?  "Let us protect the females and the young?"
Or did they think, "who is this SOB leopard on OUR territory?"  And does it
matter which?  The troop WAS protected.

Men are fascinating creatures, but don't tell me that they are rational!!

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:13:43 GMT

Donald Agarrat wrote:
     "It turns my stomach to see how many fathers there 
     are who stick the mother with the child(ren) and 
     go live another life."
     
My ex divorced me to marry her lover.
She made a false claim in order to get a restraining 
order -- so I couldn't see the kids.  She doesn't
want me to see the kids because I am a "heathen deadbeat".
I could force my visitation on her using the law but
then I would be just as belligerent as the government
who forces me to work (slavery) and then forces the 
money to go to my ex`s house (financial gang rape).
     
     "And then they ask for father's rights!"
     
I ask for =MALE= rights.  
I am not the father (except biologically).
     
     "They have not only the right, but the responsibility 
     of taking care of their children!"
     
One man does not define the other`s
"responsibility" -- that'd be enslavement.
     
     "They want everyone to know it's their children 
     so they can stick their chests out like the big 
     studs they supposedly are, but when it gets down 
     to raising a child who will hopefully be a 
     productive member of society later in life, where 
     is he?  Probably somewhere doing the same thing 
     to another woman."

I have a vasectomy.  Who raises the children
is not as important as how the children are raised.
You purport that only the biological father can
raise the child to be a "productive citizen" --
but you're wrong.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:00:41 CDT

In article <1992Sep8.002927.18462@ultb.isc.rit.edu> kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.225145.10663@u.washington.edu>, 
>hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>>   The child should be supported by people who ***CHOOSE***
>>   to support him.  
>
>But what if *no one*, both biological parents included, want to support this
>child?  That's where I cannot understand your viewpoint regarding your
>paternity.   
>
>What would you do with your son if your son's biological mother was equally
>adamant as you about not supporting him?
>
>Katie


  Sarcastically speaking.....


    Dump it off at the hospital or drop it in a dumpster. 

Two recent incidents in Minnesota.

Jon Wood

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3120 soc.men:16226 soc.women:16400 alt.dads-rights:2229 misc.kids:22968
From: whalen@starch.enet.dec.com (Rich Whalen)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Parent-Child Legal Reform
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:53:25 GMT
Reply-To: whalen@starch.enet.dec.com (Rich Whalen)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Shrewsbury, MA


In article <1992Sep10.020229.23763@u.washington.edu>,
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
|>Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids
|>From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
|>Subject: Parent-Child Legal Reform
|>Organization: University of Washington
|>Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:02:29 GMT
|>
|>Someone emailed me:
              :
              :
|>    
|>  * I would increase the taxpayers support
|>    of mothers and their children.
|>    

Should that be PARENTS and their children?  After all, the above statement
is sexist.

------------------------------------------------------
Rich Whalen

You don't know where these bits have been!
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Help.
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 12:27:37 GMT

In article <qg2NqB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith) writes:
>
>> I cannot take the kids to class with me.  They are ages 2.75 years
>> and 17 months.  I cannot afford to put them in daycare.  I have been
>> on all the waiting lists I can find for subsidized care since the
>> beginning of the year.  I might hear something next year or the year
>> after.  Nevertheless, I check with each one every couple of months.
>> 
>> Recently I discovered something called the NET program.  I applied
>> and was accepted.  They will help with day care.  However, they will
>> only pay for the time I am physically in class, and for transit time
>> to/from day care.  I have a 2.5 hour break in the middle of the day
>> on MWF, and they expect me to leave campus, pick up the kids, take
>> care of them for an hour, take them back to day care, etc.  There is
>> *NO* allowance for study time.  That is a very large shortcoming in
>> the program.  What am I supposed to do with two toddlers so that I
>> can study?
>> 
>> But that's not the real problem.  The real problem is that it is a
>> reimbursement program.  I pay for the month, send them their paper
>> work, and they reimburse.  Problem is, I just now find out, that they
>> reimburse 20 days after they receive the paperwork.
>
>You face the same problem that an awful lot of america faces. That's
>why politicians are drumming over the "deplorable daycare situation."
>They aren't doing anything about it, but hey, it isn't like we should
>expect them to actually accomplish anything. :-)
>
>As one of my functions here, I recently organized a co-op of parents
>who were in the same general boat as you are. What we did, was pool
>money, and take advantage of the diverse schedules. 
>

	Maybe you could forget the money and just exchange babysitting
	service for another individual or two, and get it free.

-- 
	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......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 06:39:06 EST
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <715922474@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.002652.15573@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP 
> (Richard Harter) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep7.094652.3937@desire.wright.edu> 
>>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>someone yells foul, one has to look at particulars.  My point was that
>>a system where rulings are made without ascertaining the situation is
>>unjust, even if it produces a fair result by chance.
> 
> What make think that a spoiled girl like Sue will ever
> give a damn about that?

Hey!  I resent that remark.  First of all, I am a woman, not a 'girl', probably
old enough to be your mother.  I do extensive volunteer work with troubled
teens, have a teenaged foster son who recently joined our family and do other
volunteer community work.  Exactly what have YOU done recently, other than for
yourself?

Sue
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3171 soc.men:16378 soc.women:16550 misc.kids:23319 alt.dads-rights:2259
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:51:14 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

> In article <c5X2qB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>, bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpa
> > chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
> >> In article <g24XqB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirk

I get it now. We're all talking about diffrent aspects of the threads.


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: lisa@zx11.cactus.org (Lisa Christman Senner)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:32:53 GMT
Reply-To: lisa@zx11.cactus.org
Distribution: world
Organization: NOT

lovegod@wam.umd.edu (Donald Andrew Agarrat) writes:
]responsibility of taking care of their children!  They want everyone to know  
]it's their children so they can stick their chests out like the big studs they  
This from someone whose user id is "lovegod"...

-- 

Lisa Christman Senner                       DoD#355 -- CBR600f2 
lisa@zx11.cactus.org                        (KotBT)
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3098 soc.men:16141
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: K-Mark Hostages
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:10:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>>   A man distragught over losing his
>>   wife and kids to a divorce is charged
>>   with 25 counts of hostage taking.
>> 
>>   He walked in the K-Mart, where he
>>   was known, and asked for a shotgun.
>>   He loaded the shotgun and created
>>   a hostage situation with the police.
>Someone this unstable shouldn't be trusted with kids...

Yep, and everybody upset about dying is too unstable to
be trusted with living.

And everybody that gets upset about being raped is too
unstable to be trusted with genetalia.

....jeff
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3126 alt.dads-rights:2234 soc.men:16265 soc.women:16434 misc.kids:23048
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: FORCING DADS DOWN MOMS THROATS
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:35:58 GMT
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

Dear Jeff, (that's EuStress to those who only know his nomme d' net)

	There comes a time in all family matters before the courts when
you have to stand before a judge and let them decide. It is very scary.
I believe it to be necessary. Everything I see on this net about you says to
me you're afraid that the judge would make it worse for you if you actually
show up in court. May be. 

You have been given a chance to change the very thing you wish for. But you
don't want to take the risk.

You make like you're this great white hope battling the system for fairness
and equality, when in fact you are a chickenshit. 

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3101 soc.men:16168 soc.women:16347 misc.kids:22856 alt.dads-rights:2220
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 9 Sep 92 06:36:05 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <123@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM>, jeffh@allspts.ALLSPTS.COM (Jeff Holloway) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.224655.16781@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>> I wrote:
>> > > [The taxpayer only pay] if the larger population of
>> > > taxpayers choose to pay the Child Support!
> 
> The reason the taxpayers pay the support is because of deadbeats like
> you, who refuse to live up to their responsibilities.
> 
>>    It's my choice and I'll thank you and
>>    your government to not financially rape me.
> 
> 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.
> 
>>    You choose to belong to that large group of
>>    society called: "taxpayers".  Your group has
>>    decided to pay for unwanted kids -- no one
>                                          ^^ ^^^
>>    is forcing the American taxpayers -- the 
>      ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>>    taxpayers, as a large and powerful group,
>>    have made there own decisions.
> 
> The American taxpayers are being forced.....either that or let the
> children starve.  They had to make that decision because of all the
> jerks like you. As a result, fathers like me who admit to and take
> responsibility for their actions still get treated like dirt because the
> prevalent opinion of fathers is that they are all deadbeats. The state
> automatically attempts to get all it can support-wise, because it
> expects all fathers to take off for parts north or south. And it's
> numbnuts like you who caused this to happen. So quit your bitching and
> start acting like an adult. You make me sick.

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.
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.  
But 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 (which were really
quite reasonable) and always paid extra to help out with school clothes and
other things.  
I still wonder how Mr. EuStress is only making $4000 a year.  Why not try
McD's, they pay better than that!

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:46:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.064649.4110@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.122832.5349@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>> In article <VIXIE.92Sep12222324@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:

[much deleted]

>I'm trying not to sound biased but since I am older than the majority of
>this group and have seen quite a bit more divorces both inside and outside
>of my family, I know several divorces where the father has just walked out
>and never looked back and NONE where the mother has done so.  

Perhaps men are taught by society that "cutting everyone's losses"
is for the best, whereas women are taught to hang on and be supportive.
Namely, bite-the-bullet-and-amputate vs. try-to-nurse-the-leg-back-to-health.
(This is, of course, a very off-the-cuff, heavily stereotypical hypothesis.)


>And, yes,
>I do know of several divorces where the father got custody.  Unfortunately
>in a few of those cases, the father managed to pick a second wife who did
>NOT want his kids and did everything possible to run them off.  
>
>The two girls for whom I am volunteer court advocate are both from a home
>where the father had custody, then took on a girl friend who tossed the 
>girls (literally) out on the street with no place to go at all.

These are sad anecdotes that indicate that inherent and superior
maternal-empathy might not be quite as powerful as the current political
atmosphere suggests.  (The reverse situation speaks equally well 
against inherent superiority of fathers - for the disclaimer-minded.
In any case, the biological parent cannot be excused for allowing it.)

What horrible stories, whether about man or woman!

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids