From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reaso
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 12:40:40 GMT

In article <87PcwB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>
>> > Our current social policy, agrieving every perceived injustice by enacting
>> >more restrictive laws in the name of equality and fairness is the most
>> >powerful drain and downward spiral of social stability. [Jon]
>
>It's kind of interesting to read your comments, Jon. A great deal of
>the anger and dissatisfaction comes from the Emotional Abuses you've
>suffered at the hands of your ex and the system. For you to assault
>the very concept that would disallow that type of damage in the
>future is, well, interesting to say the least.
>
>If you'd understood that my comments don't defend on a gender basis,
>but on a PERSON basis (as I said fairly clearly), you might be of a
>different mind.
>
>The problems with the system aren't all against men, they aren't a
>collection of solely feminist issues, and reach a lot further out
>than simply the litigants in a divorce.
>
>Yes, there's financial harm, but the damages don't just stop there,
>they reach into a very large group of associated people, and the 
>most significant devastation is via Emotional Abuse.  I tried to
>show you this by explaining about my young client. I was, to say 
>the least, disappointed that you felt so little. But then, look at
>what's happened to you, and look at what it's done to you. Emotional
>Abuse is very real --the clear majority of posts here reek of it.
>
>> 	Very well put.  The problem which you very eloquently describe
>> 	is the same problem that is magnified in the family court.
>
>Perpetrated by it, Alan. Not magnified, perpetrated. With very few
>exceptions, all who go into the courts are victimized. Men, women,
>children, relatives, friends, business associates... ad nauseum.
>
>> 	It's so interesting how litigants in a courtroom come out
>> 	owing penalties orders of magnitude greater than what any
>> 	reality would suggest; weather family court, or otherwise.
>
>Criminal and (non-family) civil cases do MUCH better. But your point
>is valid. The system is based on anything but reality, favors some
>sides --but not on a solely gender basis. 
>
>For a moment, try to picture this:
>
>The system encourages woman 'A' to go to court and take advantage of
>every means to "punish" the man she's divorcing. The animosity between
>the two parting spouses goes up a magnitude of magnitudes. The kids are
>sucked into side-taking, extended families are --hell, even friends
>take sides. The level of hate is phenomenal. The victory is relativley
>short lived. In a lot of ways, the pain created by this reaches much
>further than the 20-odd years of child support. It affects all, and 
>causes a paradigm shift in approaches to relationships. People jump on
>the bandwagon --as our society is wont to do. (Look at any election).
>
>The court sets up a serious wall between the parties. Now, the man gets
>pissed, starts punishing by avoiding support. He does it to 'hurt back,'
>or does it because he can't face what he's left with, nor can he face
>what he's lost in terms of relationship(s) with his kids. If he pays,
>he does so sporadically. 
>
>The kid needs money to pay the expenses of living, but isn't getting it.
>So mom asks the state for help. She isn't on welfare, so the state isn't
>very interested in helping. Instead, they're focusing on recovering AFDC
>dollars for their own coffers.
>
>Mom goes back to court, this time even more viscious than before, and the
>process starts all over again. 
>
>This is just one of the many scenarios invoked by the system --there are
>others (villians change, victims change). So the situation gets worse 
>and worse. In it's wisdom, the system reacts so that we hear shortsighted
>bozos saying "I believe we need an even more draconian system of child
>support collection. I really do." And the beat goes on...
>
>Emotional abuse takes on epidemic proportions. Women are hurt, men are
>hurt, kids are hurt. The very fabric of society is damaged by it all.
>Emotional abuse is not just some divorce claim made by women in a made
>for tv movie. It is real, it hurts, and hurts to the degree that some-
>times it kills.
>
>--- 
>Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
>Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 


	Bob, as usual you are right, in principal.  And you add an
	exceptional command of english to put frosting on your cake.

	Yes, I agree with what you've said.  But you yourself admit
	that civil court is less fair than criminal.  And where did
	that bias come from?

	a) from a system created by feminist lobbies who court
	politicians through their feminine charm, voting power,
	and some pie-in-the-sky story about "best interest of the
	children".  this kind of "usery" would be considered criminal
	under any other circumstances.  You have a nack of seeing
	and interpreting day-to-day events that you live in the
	courtroom to the macroscopic cause of all these things;
	WOMEN!  Yes, women suffer along with everyone else.  But
	they also perpetuate matters by using the system that
	they themselves	created against their ex and kids.  And
	while it is obvious that there is animosity against the
	male ex from the woman, I can tell you from 1st hand
	experience that in my case, my ex doesn't give a shit
	about "the best interest of my son", either.  She just
	wants me to pay the whole tab so she can ignore him and
	not have any burden from him. And lastly, if there's any
	left over for her to have a good time with, well,
	"I owe it to her".

	b)  Which leads me to the second point.  Greed.  The
	U.S. national pastime of suing.  Figuring that someone
	somewhere owes you something.  The court system (on
	all levels) is based on this.  And fairness is just not
	possible.  At ANY level.  I admire several of the female
	posters on the net who have said that they don't want
	the money from their ex.  An honest attitude.  But there
	are MANY more who do.  Weather from greed, vindictiveness,
	or both.  And as I've been told, once they find out what they can
	get, they'll go for it.  Whatever their past attitudes were.

	And it is these forces which drive the day-to-day misery
	which you correctly describe.  And it is the higher level
	juristiction that organizations like FREE should be focusing
	on and fighting.  It is, in fact, WOMEN who are perpetuating
	all this by political pressure, and personal choice to
	use it.

	Plain and simple.

	
-- 
	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......