From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:46:16 CST

In article 1egf43INNk2p@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <5aiFuB1w165w@jimmc.chi.il.us> jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas) writes:
>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>        I believe it is you who has no idea what you're speaking of! You are 
>>        ignoring the fact that most of "US" men have been denied visitation 
>>        with absolutely no recourse! Call the police and ask them, they'll
>>        say it's a matter between the two of you, but should I refuse to 
>>        hold up my end of the bargain, I go to jail, period, end of
>>        discussion!
>
>On the contrary, Jim, I'm pretty well acquainted with what I'm talking
>about.  I think instead that you are jumping to unwarrented conclusions.

 Unwarrented conlusion, yes. There are no facts or studies done that I
know of that have looked into the real problem of visitation because
the state has no compelling interest whether NCPs (Men) have visitation
or not. The do not recognise NCPs (fathers) visitation or link NCP 
involvement in their children's lives as significant. According to
several studies used by the Mn Supreme Court, NCPs should pay up but
drop out. The 'studies' in my opinion, are nothing more than bullshit. 
It secures an urban myth that men are abusers (that's why they are divorced)
and preserves a system that transfers great amounts of cash from
NCPs (men by a great majority) to CPs (women by majority). The States
only concern is for them to REDUCE single parent expenditures. Visitation
has nothing to do with welfare, AFDC or child-care. 
 I'm pretty well acquainted with what I'm talking about. 

>It's certainly a fact that many men are denied access to their children, 
>and I happen to think that's a pretty gawdawful thing.

What's worse, they rarely prosecute and the prosecuter does not see it
as a problem.  
> But I don't think
>it has anything to do with the legal justifications for abortion.
>I also recognise that many parents don't pay their court-ordered child
>support, and I think that's pretty gawdawful.  But it doesn't have anything
>to do with the legal justifications for abortion, either.
 How many don't pay and why? A man who fathered a child and lived with
his offspring at one time or another should pay child support.
>
>>> >This is unequal, wrong, and has nothing to do with "privacy".  It has
>>> >everything to do with making men a walking wallet.  It is time that this 
>>> >is stopped - permanently.
>>> Which *again* ignores the woman's financial contribution!
>>        F.Y.I. my ex-$#@$% makes NO financial contribution at all she refuses
>>        to get a job and stays in the house I bought, and married a guy who 
>>        got her pregnant again so now he's on the hook for this and the future
>>        kids, and she just lives off the support money, good scam, support
>>        moms, kinda like welfare moms, only more vindictive!!!
>
>As I've said, we all know of anecdotal evidence, but most of us are aware
>of anecdotal evidence for *both* sides of the issue.  I'm sure you know of
>some deserving parent who DOES do their best toward their children and
>doesn't receive court-ordered child support.  Think about it.  
>
>While I can understand the personal anger and frustration individuals have
>with their situations (bear in mind, Jim, that I probably have *my* own
>anger and frustration about my own situations, too), I don't think that
>one's personal anger and frustration makes good law.
I'm missin something here. Current child support law makes NCPs angry
and frustrated. Reducing the guidelines for NCPs and requiring child
support accountability would go along way to reduce anger. 
>
>>        Most support mothers don't have any of their own, they live off the
>>        very thing they hate the most, men!!!
>
>Jim.  Do you have any evidence of your claim that "most support mothers"
>don't have money of their own?  That they live off the support that is
>designated to support the child and that they hate men?

 A lot of women use the gender bias they hold in family court as a means
to inflict hurt, anger and pain. A lot of women remarry. An infinitesimal
number of women remarry men who have no income. A high majority of 
teenage mothers are living on welfare, AFCD and part time jobs. A high
percentage of teenage mothers have no income at all. Sixty percent
of black children are born out of wed-lock. Unemployment for black teen
agers and young men is 70+% in Milwaukee, Wi. 
 
>

  Jon




Newsgroups: soc.men