Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Anti-Male Defenders
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 23:49:53 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
> 
> > 
> >  How can anybody justify Child Support Laws of in many states that claim
> > "the children's standard of living should not suffer after a divorce"?
> 
> The idea is generally that the child still has both providers. This isn't
> a statement of support, just observation. The ignored fact is that now
> there are two families to support --the NCP with visitation has to provide
> a suitable place to bring their kid(s) just as the CP does.
> 
> This alone is enough to explain that the amount of disposable income is
> reduced. At least, it should be.
> 
> >  This is a desire of most parents and adults, or at least it should be. 
> > Reality suggests otherwise. A house divided is income dividing. I would
> > presume that the economic well being of divorced couples drops. 
> >  Feminists argue that only CPs (women usually) income drops. 
> 
> It's true that BOTH incomes drop. I pay little attention to the statistics
> which show that men have more money after divorce. That's obvious. Just 
> look at the workplaces --there is a disproportionate amount of employed
> men compared to women. Yes, many factors enter into WHY there are more men
> and why men make more money than their female counterparts. But, to try to
> include that generality with the specifics of divorce is apples and oranges.
> Women don't have the marketplace recognition that men do --equal pay for
> equal work --or, for that matter, equal opportunity. But to recognize this
> in the middle of divorce, and effect a 'fudge factor' to compensate for
> it is not only unfair, but discriminatory in more than one way. It penali-
> zes a specific man (family) to pay for the envisioned debt of society to
> an inequity. Sort of like --Goerge got a traffic ticket --but Bill should
> pay for it because he's a man, he drives, and probably breaks the law too.
> There are many levels on which it's wrong.
> 
> Anyway, support shouldn't be based on the income levels of the parents. It
> should be based on the need(s) of the kid(s) for their particular circum-
> stances, of which income (ability to afford) is a factor --but no more so
> than the cost of living for the parents.
> 
> >  If women seek divorce for no other reason than unreconciable differences,
> > why are they intitled to receive a disproportionate benefit of a doubt in
> > receiving custody, child support and property? 
> 
> Your point is a good one, but your wording leaves a little to be desired.
> I am wholly supportive of "no-fault" divorce. One partner, wanting out, is
> all it should take. No reasons --just "the bonds of the marital relation-
> ship are irretrievably broken." If people don't have to have a trial to
> get married, why on earth should they need one for divorce? Sure, some
> arbitration so that the assets of the MARRIAGE can be equitably divided.
> Each takes what they brought, and each takes a proportional share for the
> contribution they make. (House wife/husbands contribute!!!) But get per-
> mission from the state to separate? Give me a break.
> 
> >  Current child support guidelines presume all NCPs (usually men) as jerks?
> >  Why is that, unless of course this practice of claiming CPs (usually women
> > as victims and NCPs as evil is the agenda of the Women's Movement 
> > in order to retain a disportionate amount of unearned wealth?
> 
> Aren't you too directed here? 
> 
> I keep saying this, and I keep getting ignored. But I'll try one more time.
> The system screws EVERYBODY one way or another. Women get screwed over, men
> get screwed over, kids get screwed over. Instead of always throwing rocks,
> perhaps a better approach is finding those places where changes could be a
> benefit to all, and get working on those together --even with perceived
> enemies. All an enemy is, is someone you haven't found a benefit for an
> alliance with yet.
> 
THANK YOU, BOB and HALLELUJAH!

AMEN.

Lisa


Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Newsgroups: alt.child-support