Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:17:34 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <1992Nov5.163209.18055@ads.com>, charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov3.112353.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
|> >
|> >  In any event, I am concerned that the question of father's rights remains
|> >focused solely in the context of men who do NOT want children, and
|> >continues to ignore the rights of husbands who DO want children and who
|> >have married with that expectation explicitly agreed to. Only then do
|> >these husbands discover that their wives are free to change their minds 
|> >about children with impunity whereas a husband cannot change his mind about
|> >the marriage without suffering the loss of most of his material wealth; wealth
|> >he accumulated in order to support a family with children. What about _his_
|> >rights?
|> 
|> Michael, you live in California, you should know better than this.
|> 
|> It's a community property state.  What he accumulated before the
|> marriage is still his, unless he was (frankly) stupid enough to
|> co-mingle his assets with his wife's during the marriage, by, say,
|> selling his house and pooling the proceeds with her money so they could
|> buy a house together.  The material wealth accumulated during the
|> marriage is theirs, not his, and gets divided accordingly.

  That may be what the label states, but frankly, it ain't what's inside
the package, particularly in this day and age of the claim of spousal
abuse. In my case (as happens now in 1/3 of all divorces) my ex accused
me of having battered and raped her during the marriage. The resulting
"stress" was the cause of her spening binges, and because she needed to
keep her own patcheck for her therepist (of 8 years) the court placed
her debt burden on me, to the tune of $1300 a month for the next 2 years.
It doesn't matter where the assetts come from; I either pay that money
or I get to be a homeless person. As far as the assetts accumulated _during_
the marriage, she got her pick of everything under the "lifestyle one has
become accustomed to" doctrine. In other words, because marriage to me eevated
her lifestyle, she gets to take that lifestyle with her in it's material
manifestation. 

  And it's not just me. Many of the members of the "Parent Connection" here
in Los Angeles have lost pre-marital assetts in settlements arising  out
of a claim of abuse during the marriage. The current estimates are that at
least 80% of these charges are total fabrications, suggested by the lawyers
precisely because it will result in huge settlements of which they get a
percentage. 



|> 
|> "What about _his_ rights?"  Well, I don't have a heck of a lot of
|> sympathy any more for men who hand over everything they've worked a
|> lifetime for, just because wifey-to-be said, "Oh, of *course* I'll keep
|> working after we're married" or "Yes, I want children too."

  So, according to you, the smart thing is to assume all women to be liers
who will say anything to get married, then do whatever they want afterwards?
Even _I_ have more respect for the average woman that THAT!  And it sounds
like you think very little of a man who commits totally to a relationship.
We keep hearing women complain how men are afraid of committment, and then
when a man who does make a total committment gets hurt, you say he
is undeserving of sympathy?!?!?!?  That's a mixed signal. We're damned
if we do and damned if we don't. 


|> 
|> Yes, of course, she lied or she changed her mind.  And, no, I don't have
|> a very high opinion of people like that, either.  But you've got to stand
|> up for your rights.  Make sure your assets remain yours.

  As noted above, easier said than done. Here in California, all a woman
has to do is cry "abuse", and the courts will immediatly transfer his
wealth to her. It's like the first line of that rock song."My sister got lucky;
Married a Yuppie. Took him for all he was worth". That's not a joke
anymore; that's what the family courts are actually doing. 

  Again, it's not the women, per se, it's the lawyers who have exploited
the rape and abuse hysteria to line their own pockets. Frankly I think men
and women would get along a lot better if the lawyers were lined up against
a wall and shot, twice, where it hurts rrreeeeaaaallll baaaaadddd! (And
of late, this has been happening. I don't condone violence, but on the other
hand, the recent courtroom shootings by divorced men where lawyers are
killed and wives left unscathed indicates that these men know the real
cause of the problem.)


|> 
|> Charleen
|> --
|> I eat swiss cheese from the inside out.

  I thought I was the only one who did that!



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>