From: Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:59:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <P9csoB2w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>
>> the time I was just furious, because in generalizing she was talking about
>> ME as well as other wonderful single moms I know who I could never imagine
>> saying those are the reasons they have kids.
>> 
>> My reasons for having a child? It was an "accident", although I really
>> doubt someone who really didn't want a child would allow an accident,
>> except in situations where they were using birth control but got pregnant
>> anyway, or were raped (of course). To tell you the truth Dan, I longed for
>
>Now wait a minute.
>
>I'm a man, and I complain about the child-support laws which exist today.
>I complain about money --to use your terminology.
>
>I complain because the system is inequitable: It is income-based versus
>need-based, and not only that, it imparts a standard based on general
>incomes for locations to which they don't or can't apply.
>
>I complain that the money issues are driven in the courts by sexist
>attitudes which reflect (on the whole) female wants versus objective and
>pragmatic approaches to the economics of child-rearing. I complain 
>because these attitudes extend into the areas of not only custody, but
>visitation too.
>
>So, I'm one of "all those men who complain about money," to use your
>terminology. Mic, for someone who got furious over a generalization,
>you certainly weild generalization like a sword. You've made ME angry.
>
>Look at what you said later in your post:
>
>> I agree with you Dan, you are very much correct, but that is not the way
>> she put it. Obviously, you put more thought into your message than she
>> did. Bottom line: being a mom myself, she insulted me by not including
>> enough words like "most" or "some" or "many".
>
>I'll ask you to inspect your own attitude. The statements you're making
>here elevates single-moms and says nothing about single-dads. We men
>make pretty damn good parents too. While you're at it, I'll ask you to
>give some thought to NCP fathers, like me, who are VERY MUCH an important
>part of their kids lives, and consider the needs and even wants of their 
>children as very important.


Ok, now wait a minute. If I was to include every possible person who could
be raising a child alone, you would never reach the end! I did not
disclude men on purpose, I was speaking of why *I* was insulted by her
message, and I am not a man! Of course there are excellent single dads out
there, but the single parents I know are moms, and I could not include
single dads because I don't know any. Do you understand why I did not
include them? Please don't make assumptions about anything I say, because
unless I say "Only single moms should be put on a pedestal and praised"
then you can assume that that was not the intent of my message. Ok? I
think ALL parents, whether single or married, should be praised for their
selflessness, and I mean that sincerely.

>
>Yes, I complain about the money. You bet I do. The laws on basic support
>grants allows (in my state) for 45% of my gross to be tapped. Which, BTW
>is what they get from me. However, the law also allows for consideration
>of other elements, like my new wife's income for 'Extraordinary Expenses'
>above and beyond the basic support award. That translates into my wife
>paying support for kids that aren't even hers. Yes, Mic, I do complain

Thank you for sharing that. I really aprreciate it, because  truthfully, I
only know what the laws are in Wisconsin, which is 17% of the man's
income. I find this reasonable, though of course, my son's father does not.
Freedom is an invaluable thing, but what you are paying is quite
ridiculous. I have been reading this area for quite some time now, and I
understand why many men are upset. I understand it when a man's financial
security is in jeopardy while the woman walks off smiling, what bothers me
is certain people not wanting to pay ANYTHING. I hope you can see why that
would bother me. I sympathize with your problems. It sounds like you got
involved with a doozy of a woman! 


>
>But let's look a little beyond that, Mic. My kids go to summer school
>to study art and music, play little league baseball, go to basketball
>camp, swimming lessons, and a hoarde of other things. I help pay for
>these things, provide transportation, and am involved in the activities
>as well. Sure, I do it because I love my kids and I want to. But the
>point is, I DO do these things, and contribute dollars ABOVE the order
>to do it.
>

See that's all I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear the personal side of it.
I wanted to see how you and others feel about these kids, and whether you
spend any time with them. That's what I care about, knowing the kids
aren't feeling abandoned by you. Thank you for the response to this
question, I was very happy to know that you include them in your life.

>
>I complain because the costs of the support system --no less the support
>itself, drove me and my new wife into bankruptcy while my ex was able
>to buy a new (and pretty expensive house). I complain because the bank
>took my new wife's car --that she bought with her own money before we
>were married-- in the bankruptcy. Not to mention a number of other items
>which included the house she owned and had been paying on for eight years.
>I complain that the whole situation caused me to go on public assistance,
>and that the amount of support didn't waver a bit --staying at the same
>amount it was set at. The amount, by the way, was 220% of my income at
>that time.

All I can say is that the government works for the good of the children.
It must be that they assume the father was abandoning his duties. But the
problem with the government is that it is difficult to pass laws on an
individual basis. If they could, I think a lot of your problems would be
solved. I really don't know what to tell you, it must be very stressful.
But if I were you I'd have a good long talk with your ex, and if you get
nowhere, go to a lawyer. Have you tried this?
 
>So Mic, the next time you want to complain and get angry over generalization,
>you might give thought to your own perspectives, and the damage that they
>do to people  -- in the same way generalizations damaged you.
>
>Yes, I complain about the money. So would you if you saw it from another
>perspective. One which didn't generalize and make assumptions based only
>in your limited scope of understanding. I say that to you, and I say that
>to those who want to give up their choice not to make kids, and then want
>the choice to refuse responsibility for the child they made. You opinion
>and theirs deal in different circumstances, but they really aren't that
>different in that they ignore realities of life in favor of self-indulgence.
>
>
>---
>Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
>root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us

Are you saying that my choosing to have a child was a form of
self-indulgence? Uh-uh, no way. Before I had the child yes, you are right
on, but the job of parenting is far off from hoarding down a feast, or
buying a yacht, etc. This is a JOB -- enjoyable sometimes, stressful other
times, and I hear it only gets more difficult as the child grows...

Michelle
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2220 misc.legal:14755