1. Respect Your Children's Mother

One of the best things a father can do for his children is to respect
their mother. If you are married, keep your marriage strong and vital.
If you're not married, it is still important to respect and support
the mother of your children. A father and mother who respect each
other, and let their children know it, provide a secure environment
for them. When children see their parents respecting each other, they
are more likely to feel that they are also accepted and respected.


2. Spend Time with Your Children

How a father spends his time tells his children what's important to
him. If you always seem to busy for your children, they will feel
neglected no matter what you say. Treasuring children often means
sacrificing other things, but it is essential to spend time with your
children. Kids grow up so quickly. Missed opportunities are forever
lost.


3. Earn the Right to Be Heard

All too often the only time a father speaks to his children is when
they have done something wrong. That's why so many children cringe
when their mother says, "Your father wants to talk with you." Begin
talking with your kids when they are very young so that difficult
subjects will be easier to handle as they get older. Take time and
listen to their ideas and problems.


4. Discipline with Love

All children need guidance and discipline, not as punishment, but to
set reasonable limits. Remind your children of the consequences of
their actions and provide meaningful rewards for desirable behavior.
Fathers who discipline in a calm and fair manner show love for their
children.


5. Be a Role Model

Fathers are role models to their kids whether they realize it or not.
A girl who spends time with a loving father grows up knowing she
deserves to be treated with respect by boys, and what to look for in a
husband. Fathers can teach sons what is important in life by
demonstrating honesty, humility and responsibility. "All the world's a
stage..." and a father plays one of the most vital roles.


6. Be a Teacher

Too many fathers think teaching is something others do. But a father
who teaches his children about right and wrong, and encourages them to
do their best, will see his children make good choices. Involved
fathers use everyday examples to help their children learn the basic
lessons of life.


7. Eat Together as a Family

Sharing a meal together (breakfast, lunch or dinner) can be an
important part of healthy family life. In addition to providing some
structure in a busy day, it gives kids the chance to talk about what
they are doing and want to do. It is also a good time for fathers to
listen and give advice. Most importantly, it is a time for families to
be together each day.


8. Read to Your Children

In a world where television often dominates the lives of children, it
is important that fathers make the effort to read to their children.
Children learn best by doing and reading, as well as seeing and
hearing. Begin reading to your children when they are very young. When
they are older encourage them to read on their own. Instilling your
children with a love for reading is one of the best ways to ensure
they will have a lifetime of personal and career growth.


9. Show Affection

Children need the security that comes from knowing they are wanted,
accepted and loved by their family. Parents, especially fathers, need
to feel both comfortable and willing to hug their children. Showing
affection everyday is the best way to let your children know that you
love them.


10. Realize that a Father's Job Is Never Done

Even after children are grown and ready to leave home, they will still
look to their fathers for wisdom and advice. Whether it's continued
schooling, a new job or a wedding, fathers continue to play an
essential part in the lives of their children as they grow and,
perhaps, marry and build their own families.


[Printed with permission from the National Fatherhood Initiative]

Robert,

Amen to that. Not only am I going to improve myself in areas where
I've slipped, but I'm also going to print this out and give it to my
son-in-law, who just became a father 3 months ago.

Thank you so much for sharing :)

Scott

Robert Gautier wrote:
1. Respect Your Children's Mother One of the best things a father can do for his children is to respect their mother. If you are married, keep your marriage strong and vital. If you're not married, it is still important to respect and support the mother of your children. A father and mother who respect each other, and let their children know it, provide a secure environment for them. When children see their parents respecting each other, they are more likely to feel that they are also accepted and respected. 2. Spend Time with Your Children How a father spends his time tells his children what's important to him. If you always seem to busy for your children, they will feel neglected no matter what you say. Treasuring children often means sacrificing other things, but it is essential to spend time with your children. Kids grow up so quickly. Missed opportunities are forever lost. 3. Earn the Right to Be Heard All too often the only time a father speaks to his children is when they have done something wrong. That's why so many children cringe when their mother says, "Your father wants to talk with you." Begin talking with your kids when they are very young so that difficult subjects will be easier to handle as they get older. Take time and listen to their ideas and problems. 4. Discipline with Love All children need guidance and discipline, not as punishment, but to set reasonable limits. Remind your children of the consequences of their actions and provide meaningful rewards for desirable behavior. Fathers who discipline in a calm and fair manner show love for their children. 5. Be a Role Model Fathers are role models to their kids whether they realize it or not. A girl who spends time with a loving father grows up knowing she deserves to be treated with respect by boys, and what to look for in a husband. Fathers can teach sons what is important in life by demonstrating honesty, humility and responsibility. "All the world's a stage..." and a father plays one of the most vital roles. 6. Be a Teacher Too many fathers think teaching is something others do. But a father who teaches his children about right and wrong, and encourages them to do their best, will see his children make good choices. Involved fathers use everyday examples to help their children learn the basic lessons of life. 7. Eat Together as a Family Sharing a meal together (breakfast, lunch or dinner) can be an important part of healthy family life. In addition to providing some structure in a busy day, it gives kids the chance to talk about what they are doing and want to do. It is also a good time for fathers to listen and give advice. Most importantly, it is a time for families to be together each day. 8. Read to Your Children In a world where television often dominates the lives of children, it is important that fathers make the effort to read to their children. Children learn best by doing and reading, as well as seeing and hearing. Begin reading to your children when they are very young. When they are older encourage them to read on their own. Instilling your children with a love for reading is one of the best ways to ensure they will have a lifetime of personal and career growth. 9. Show Affection Children need the security that comes from knowing they are wanted, accepted and loved by their family. Parents, especially fathers, need to feel both comfortable and willing to hug their children. Showing affection everyday is the best way to let your children know that you love them. 10. Realize that a Father's Job Is Never Done Even after children are grown and ready to leave home, they will still look to their fathers for wisdom and advice. Whether it's continued schooling, a new job or a wedding, fathers continue to play an essential part in the lives of their children as they grow and, perhaps, marry and build their own families. [Printed with permission from the National Fatherhood Initiative]

In article <e45fbc08.0311121700.186b5d70@posting.google.com>, Robert Gautier
says...1. Respect Your Children's MotherOne of the best things a father can do for his children is to respecttheir mother. If you are married, keep your marriage strong and vital.If you're not married, it is still important to respect and supportthe mother of your children. A father and mother who respect eachother, and let their children know it, provide a secure environmentfor them. When children see their parents respecting each other, theyare more likely to feel that they are also accepted and respected.2. Spend Time with Your ChildrenHow a father spends his time tells his children what's important tohim. If you always seem to busy for your children, they will feelneglected no matter what you say. Treasuring children often meanssacrificing other things, but it is essential to spend time with yourchildren. Kids grow up so quickly. Missed opportunities are foreverlost.3. Earn the Right to Be HeardAll too often the only time a father speaks to his children is whenthey have done something wrong. That's why so many children cringewhen their mother says, "Your father wants to talk with you." Begintalking with your kids when they are very young so that difficultsubjects will be easier to handle as they get older. Take time andlisten to their ideas and problems.4. Discipline with LoveAll children need guidance and discipline, not as punishment, but toset reasonable limits. Remind your children of the consequences oftheir actions and provide meaningful rewards for desirable behavior.Fathers who discipline in a calm and fair manner show love for theirchildren.5. Be a Role ModelFathers are role models to their kids whether they realize it or not.A girl who spends time with a loving father grows up knowing shedeserves to be treated with respect by boys, and what to look for in ahusband. Fathers can teach sons what is important in life bydemonstrating honesty, humility and responsibility. "All the world's astage..." and a father plays one of the most vital roles.6. Be a TeacherToo many fathers think teaching is something others do. But a fatherwho teaches his children about right and wrong, and encourages them todo their best, will see his children make good choices. Involvedfathers use everyday examples to help their children learn the basiclessons of life.7. Eat Together as a FamilySharing a meal together (breakfast, lunch or dinner) can be animportant part of healthy family life. In addition to providing somestructure in a busy day, it gives kids the chance to talk about whatthey are doing and want to do. It is also a good time for fathers tolisten and give advice. Most importantly, it is a time for families tobe together each day.8. Read to Your ChildrenIn a world where television often dominates the lives of children, itis important that fathers make the effort to read to their children.Children learn best by doing and reading, as well as seeing andhearing. Begin reading to your children when they are very young. Whenthey are older encourage them to read on their own. Instilling yourchildren with a love for reading is one of the best ways to ensurethey will have a lifetime of personal and career growth.9. Show AffectionChildren need the security that comes from knowing they are wanted,accepted and loved by their family. Parents, especially fathers, needto feel both comfortable and willing to hug their children. Showingaffection everyday is the best way to let your children know that youlove them.10. Realize that a Father's Job Is Never DoneEven after children are grown and ready to leave home, they will stilllook to their fathers for wisdom and advice. Whether it's continuedschooling, a new job or a wedding, fathers continue to play anessential part in the lives of their children as they grow and,perhaps, marry and build their own families.

This is all well and good, but even with all this the kids will be starving,
wearing dirty clothes, living in a dirty enviornment, unmedicated when ill, and
with a father who isn't in touch with teachers and other adults in their lives.
I mean, they'll all sit down at the same time to an empty table to eat nothing
together, they'll pull on dirty, too-small PJs for that book to be read.
Something's amiss here.

Me thinks there are big blanks in this recipe for fatherhood.

(Oh, yeah - I fergit - somebody else is supposed to be doing all that...)

Banty (who does all of the above)

You forgot # 11: Donate generously to your local men's and fathers PAC
in your state to make sure you are empowered to do al of these
wonderful things for your children.

robgautier@DCEmail.com (Robert Gautier) wrote in message news:<e45fbc08.0311121700.186b5d70@posting.google.com>... 1. Respect Your Children's Mother One of the best things a father can do for his children is to respect their mother. If you are married, keep your marriage strong and vital. If you're not married, it is still important to respect and support the mother of your children. A father and mother who respect each other, and let their children know it, provide a secure environment for them. When children see their parents respecting each other, they are more likely to feel that they are also accepted and respected. 2. Spend Time with Your Children How a father spends his time tells his children what's important to him. If you always seem to busy for your children, they will feel neglected no matter what you say. Treasuring children often means sacrificing other things, but it is essential to spend time with your children. Kids grow up so quickly. Missed opportunities are forever lost. 3. Earn the Right to Be Heard All too often the only time a father speaks to his children is when they have done something wrong. That's why so many children cringe when their mother says, "Your father wants to talk with you." Begin talking with your kids when they are very young so that difficult subjects will be easier to handle as they get older. Take time and listen to their ideas and problems. 4. Discipline with Love All children need guidance and discipline, not as punishment, but to set reasonable limits. Remind your children of the consequences of their actions and provide meaningful rewards for desirable behavior. Fathers who discipline in a calm and fair manner show love for their children. 5. Be a Role Model Fathers are role models to their kids whether they realize it or not. A girl who spends time with a loving father grows up knowing she deserves to be treated with respect by boys, and what to look for in a husband. Fathers can teach sons what is important in life by demonstrating honesty, humility and responsibility. "All the world's a stage..." and a father plays one of the most vital roles. 6. Be a Teacher Too many fathers think teaching is something others do. But a father who teaches his children about right and wrong, and encourages them to do their best, will see his children make good choices. Involved fathers use everyday examples to help their children learn the basic lessons of life. 7. Eat Together as a Family Sharing a meal together (breakfast, lunch or dinner) can be an important part of healthy family life. In addition to providing some structure in a busy day, it gives kids the chance to talk about what they are doing and want to do. It is also a good time for fathers to listen and give advice. Most importantly, it is a time for families to be together each day. 8. Read to Your Children In a world where television often dominates the lives of children, it is important that fathers make the effort to read to their children. Children learn best by doing and reading, as well as seeing and hearing. Begin reading to your children when they are very young. When they are older encourage them to read on their own. Instilling your children with a love for reading is one of the best ways to ensure they will have a lifetime of personal and career growth. 9. Show Affection Children need the security that comes from knowing they are wanted, accepted and loved by their family. Parents, especially fathers, need to feel both comfortable and willing to hug their children. Showing affection everyday is the best way to let your children know that you love them. 10. Realize that a Father's Job Is Never Done Even after children are grown and ready to leave home, they will still look to their fathers for wisdom and advice. Whether it's continued schooling, a new job or a wedding, fathers continue to play an essential part in the lives of their children as they grow and, perhaps, marry and build their own families. [Printed with permission from the National Fatherhood Initiative]

AlephNull_42@yahoo.com (Aleph Null) wrote in message news:<7a3d5c77.0311141136.26866bc0@posting.google.com>... You forgot # 11: Donate generously to your local men's and fathers PAC in your state to make sure you are empowered to do al of these wonderful things for your children.


My error. That is perhaps the most imporatant one of all. Thanks.




robgautier@DCEmail.com (Robert Gautier) wrote in message news:<e45fbc08.0311121700.186b5d70@posting.google.com>... 1. Respect Your Children's Mother One of the best things a father can do for his children is to respect their mother. If you are married, keep your marriage strong and vital. If you're not married, it is still important to respect and support the mother of your children. A father and mother who respect each other, and let their children know it, provide a secure environment for them. When children see their parents respecting each other, they are more likely to feel that they are also accepted and respected. 2. Spend Time with Your Children How a father spends his time tells his children what's important to him. If you always seem to busy for your children, they will feel neglected no matter what you say. Treasuring children often means sacrificing other things, but it is essential to spend time with your children. Kids grow up so quickly. Missed opportunities are forever lost. 3. Earn the Right to Be Heard All too often the only time a father speaks to his children is when they have done something wrong. That's why so many children cringe when their mother says, "Your father wants to talk with you." Begin talking with your kids when they are very young so that difficult subjects will be easier to handle as they get older. Take time and listen to their ideas and problems. 4. Discipline with Love All children need guidance and discipline, not as punishment, but to set reasonable limits. Remind your children of the consequences of their actions and provide meaningful rewards for desirable behavior. Fathers who discipline in a calm and fair manner show love for their children. 5. Be a Role Model Fathers are role models to their kids whether they realize it or not. A girl who spends time with a loving father grows up knowing she deserves to be treated with respect by boys, and what to look for in a husband. Fathers can teach sons what is important in life by demonstrating honesty, humility and responsibility. "All the world's a stage..." and a father plays one of the most vital roles. 6. Be a Teacher Too many fathers think teaching is something others do. But a father who teaches his children about right and wrong, and encourages them to do their best, will see his children make good choices. Involved fathers use everyday examples to help their children learn the basic lessons of life. 7. Eat Together as a Family Sharing a meal together (breakfast, lunch or dinner) can be an important part of healthy family life. In addition to providing some structure in a busy day, it gives kids the chance to talk about what they are doing and want to do. It is also a good time for fathers to listen and give advice. Most importantly, it is a time for families to be together each day. 8. Read to Your Children In a world where television often dominates the lives of children, it is important that fathers make the effort to read to their children. Children learn best by doing and reading, as well as seeing and hearing. Begin reading to your children when they are very young. When they are older encourage them to read on their own. Instilling your children with a love for reading is one of the best ways to ensure they will have a lifetime of personal and career growth. 9. Show Affection Children need the security that comes from knowing they are wanted, accepted and loved by their family. Parents, especially fathers, need to feel both comfortable and willing to hug their children. Showing affection everyday is the best way to let your children know that you love them. 10. Realize that a Father's Job Is Never Done Even after children are grown and ready to leave home, they will still look to their fathers for wisdom and advice. Whether it's continued schooling, a new job or a wedding, fathers continue to play an essential part in the lives of their children as they grow and, perhaps, marry and build their own families. [Printed with permission from the National Fatherhood Initiative]

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB56DD8.4080202@hotmail.com... Byron Canfield wrote: I'd say, then, that you lost your chance. Should have done that before
all that happened. Obviously you have never seen the inside of the "family" injustice system.

Irrelevant -- that only comes into play AFTER you've blown your chance. Do you work for the government BTW?

No. Or rather, only until, what is it now, the third or fourth month of each
year.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

"Robert Gautier" <robgautier@DCEmail.com>
...-elision for brevity-
Continue to strive to be a good role model for your children no matter what the circumstances. Just try to be the best person you can be, for their sake and put them above all else.

Sadly when it comes to divorce and separation over 40% of fathers will loose
all contact with their children.
This is not in anyway a deficiency in the fathers. Testimonies abound of how
they have tried against all odds to keep the contact going. Sadly the system
today is geared exclusively to extracting maintenance from them and it is
more often than not abused and manipulated by vindictive mothers for self
serving ends. Eventually this leads to total paternal alienation.

Have you guys not heard of the recent spiderman, batman& robin stunts in
London ?
What do you think they are all about ?

If one cares at all about children's welfare it is high time to start taking
an interest in fathers rights and not continue to dismiss and ridicule them.
In the Western world, one in three marriages end in divorce. Times that by
40% .... That is an awful lot of children who are growing up with no dad to
turn to. What effect do you think that is having on them and what impact
does it hold for future society?

"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bp819601sem@drn.newsguy.com...

[] Well, more than that actually. Including feeding them, keeping a healthy envrionment for them, and taking time off work to take them to the doctor.
All of which can be done about half time in a joint custody situation. THe
currrent default for divorce, and one of course granted to the father as well as
the mother because he's been doing that all along. No? You mean he's going to present himself as the breadwinner, head of the
family and lifelong advisor to his children, but the day to day and minute to
minute maintenance and nurturing roles are not his? Whoopsie again.

Sometimes it works out that a division of roles is the most efficient way to
organize the family. The couple might decide that one parent is the
breadwinner while the other does maintenance and nurturing. What
justification is there, when awarding custody, to penalize a parent for
being the breadwinner?

Jayne

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:55:13 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
<ChrisScaife@xtra.co.nz> wrote: Sadly when it comes to divorce and separation over 40% of fathers will loose all contact with their children.

Where did you get that statistic?

(posting from misc.kids)

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<bp84ms$1k6a1m$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bp819601sem@drn.newsguy.com... [] Well, more than that actually. Including feeding them, keeping a healthy envrionment for them, and taking time off work to take them to the doctor. All of which can be done about half time in a joint custody situation. THe currrent default for divorce, and one of course granted to the father as well as the mother because he's been doing that all along. No? You mean he's going to present himself as the breadwinner, head of the family and lifelong advisor to his children, but the day to day and minute to minute maintenance and nurturing roles are not his? Whoopsie again.
Sometimes it works out that a division of roles is the most efficient way to organize the family. The couple might decide that one parent is the breadwinner while the other does maintenance and nurturing. What justification is there, when awarding custody, to penalize a parent for being the breadwinner? Jayne

Even when the cards are stacked against one parent or another,
they are that way because of the law or because of the other parent.
No matter what happens fathers should try our best to remain good
fathers and to rise above the bull**** when in the presence of our
children.

"ChrisScaife" <ChrisScaife@xtra.co.nz> wrote: A home where "toy boy" is busy humping mum all day long is no secure environment.

That is your interpretation of that environment. Who is to say
that the other side wouldn't have equally damning things to say
about your home? And be any less accurate?



P. Tierney

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:17:47 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
<ChrisScaife@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Nope No 1 below clerly says "respect each other". If the wife is unfaithful she has no respect and cn expect none in return.

You owe your children permission to love and respect their mother, even
when that's hard for you to do because you were/feel betrayed. That
doesn't have anything to do with whether you respect the things she did
to you.
Besides I thought this was the dads-rights group. Not the dads-duties group ?

The rights and duties go together.
So imagine you do all of those things and you are a first class dad to your kids and an attentive husband to your wife. Then one day you come home from work and your wife says she is bored with you and wants a divorce... What do you do then to be a better father ?

Maximize the time you have with your kids. Don't verbally or by actions
denigrate their mother to them. Feed them, play with them, read to
them, go to their schools and meet their teachers. Participate in their
lives as much as you can.

Be the rational one, especially if mom isn't. Your kids will hopefully
someday recognize that you never asked them to think their mother was
scum, and will be grateful.

"ChrisScaife" <ChrisScaife@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:xwFtb.3667$fg2.83727@news.xtra.co.nz... So imagine you do all of those things and you are a first class dad to
your kids and an attentive husband to your wife. Then one day you come home
from work and your wife says she is bored with you and wants a divorce...
I would say that your preception that you fulfilled the former is skewed if
the latter occurred. I suspect that the "other side of the story" would be
quite different from yours.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

> >Besides I thought this was the dads-rights group. Not the dads-duties
group? Scutttlebutt on misc.kids (to which this thread was crossposted) is: ??!?
he doesn't see a connection between "dads-rights" and "dads-duties"? Banty

You have reponded to my posting but appear to be addressing an annonymous
3rd party.
Perhaps it is a lack in communication skills, perhaps in manners, but as you
are so
knowledgable, I invite you to explain this link between rights and duties
so that I can understand why, as a divorced dad, the latter are many and the
former are few.

On the other hand, if your purpose is merely to heckle and sabotage any
meaningful
discussion on this forum while hiding behind a probably fake identity
it merely serves to prove a point in question: During divorce, any attempt
to establish
constructive dialog, or negotiate settlements and compromises with a person
like that
is futile. Neither can they be relied on to cooperate consistently with
agreements or
court orders once they have been obtained.

Such people should be exposed and treated with the contempt they diserve.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:54:35 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
<ChrisScaife@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
I invite you to explain this link between rights and dutiesso that I can understand why, as a divorced dad, the latterare many and the former are few.

I am not Banty, but certainly you cannot mean that you don't
see that there is a connection between duties and rights.

Divorces are difficult and both parties suffer, but the children
suffer most of all if both parents cannot set aside their own
animosities and realize they are both still parents.

And yes, children need their fathers as much as they need
their mothers, imho. It is important that contact be maintained
by both parents and this must be without badmouthing the other
parent and must include being able to sit down and talk about
the parenting issues without making it about what went wrong
in their relationship. It is also important that both parents take
care of the children's physical needs as well as the emotional
needs.

This is very difficult, but I do know dads and moms who manage
it with joint custody and who get along better than they did when
they were married and living together. It is all in how you
approach things. The adversarial system doesn't work very well
for this at all.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article <FePtb.18043$Dw6.81105@attbi_s02>, P. Tierney says..."ChrisScaife" <ChrisScaife@xtra.co.nz> wrote: A home where "toy boy" is busy humping mum all day long is no secure environment. That is your interpretation of that environment. Who is to saythat the other side wouldn't have equally damning things to sayabout your home? And be any less accurate?

I'd like to meet this 'toy boy' who can hump all day ;-)

Seriously, reducing that assertion to something more realistic - sounds like
Mom, after divorce, has gone on with her life. Which seems to be the poster's
complaint.

Banty

"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bp9ctc069r@drn.newsguy.com... All he said is that it sounds like there are two sides to a story.

No he didn't say that.
Does 'he' now need you as an interpreter ?
.... It's just that this idea that the posters we're seeing suddenly crossposted here to misc.kids were
all exemplary, whilst their ex's are spending all day 'humping' and drinking,
but have all wrapped up full legal custody, strains our credulity.

Yet it is so.

... and OK I shall delete the cross posting on my next reply. I don't agree
with posting to multiple groups anyway. If you want to read postings to
alt.dads-rights.unmoderated then subscribe to it.
The likelihood is by far the greatest that both parties had some share in
the blame.

Is it ?
What ever gives you that idea?
The fact is that some people think they can do whatever they want without
caring one iota about anyone else!

Chris

Banty wrote: Depends. In many cases, custody isn't pressed for until the father remarries - he has found another female to do the job.

Nope. Most of the time the female demands custody because C$ payments
are dependent on "custody" and she has to have custody to collect the
money. Its usually about the money. The "best interest of the children"
turns out to be what pays mom the most.


All I'm saying is that the old practice of granting custody of young children followed from the very gender roles that the soc.men folks don't seem to have a problem with.

Wrong. The practice comes from using kids as pawn to extort money from
men. That's what soc.men regulars have trouble with, and that's the
most common outcome of divorce.

Tell enough folks that mothers should be doing the child caretaking, one shoudln't be surprised that family court judges had signed onto that notion as well. When family roles change (as they are changing), divorce outcomes reflect that (which more and more they are).

All those old excuses are way over done. Its about the money.



Bob

I forgot to add to my previous response...

How canI possibly do any of the duties that are expected of me and that I
want to perform if I am totally denied contact with my son ?

My right... and his right... to have contact with me _must_ come first.

Regards,
Chris

"ChrisScaife" <ChrisScaife@xtra.co.nz> wrote:... the children suffer most of all if both parents cannot set aside their own animosities and realize they are both still parents. The children suffer because the system allows mothers to manipulate it for their own vindictive ends.

Each side can manipulate any system. Focusing on generalities
about gender, all borne from your individual experience, doesn't further
your cause.

It's an individual problem with an individual solution. I don't
know what that solution is, especially not without looking through
all sorts of court files, including testimony from the mother. Still,
since you aren't all that receptive to alternate points of view, it
doesn't really matter all that much.


P. Tierney

The best way to be a father is by having custody or very frequent time
with your children. Beware of the best interest platitude that may be
meaningless.The truth is best interests do not mean best interests as
in a common sense definition. Best interest is defined by statutes and
case law and if you argue in court on the common sense definition
instead of researching how the case and statutory law define best
interest and fail to base your argument on those legal definitions you
are fooling yourself and will lose. You must fight for your rights in
court. Too many times guys complain about their situation when they
agreed to an agreed order raping them of their rights because they
didnt want to or couldn't spend the money necessary to win
custody.See free tactics at fathersrights.org

Finally someone who is talking sense :-)
You can't be a father if you can't be with your kids.
But what to do if your ex simply doesn't comply with contact order ?
Take her to court again and get another order for her to not comply with ?


"R Isaacs J.D." <risaacs@intrnet.net> wrote in message
news:48daeb75.0311170804.3faf0e19@posting.google.c om... The best way to be a father is by having custody or very frequent time with your children. Beware of the best interest platitude that may be meaningless.The truth is best interests do not mean best interests as in a common sense definition. Best interest is defined by statutes and case law and if you argue in court on the common sense definition instead of researching how the case and statutory law define best interest and fail to base your argument on those legal definitions you are fooling yourself and will lose. You must fight for your rights in court. Too many times guys complain about their situation when they agreed to an agreed order raping them of their rights because they didnt want to or couldn't spend the money necessary to win custody.See free tactics at fathersrights.org

In article <M87ub.1040$VV6.21911@news.xtra.co.nz>, ChrisScaife says...Finally someone who is talking sense :-)You can't be a father if you can't be with your kids.But what to do if your ex simply doesn't comply with contact order ?Take her to court again and get another order for her to not comply with ?

Funny how y'all leave out the be-with-kids part that happens before the divorce.

Banty

"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bp9d8k07di@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bp9bf5$1mfep2$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne
Kulikauskas says...

[]It doesn't make much sense to say that a father *won't* get involved innurturing, if he is asking for joint custody of a young child. Depends. In many cases, custody isn't pressed for until the father
remarries - he has found another female to do the job.

I don't see anything wrong with that. He is still the child's father and
still deserves custody.
All I'm saying is that the old practice of granting custody of young
children followed from the very gender roles that the soc.men folks don't seem to
have a problem with. Tell enough folks that mothers should be doing the child caretaking, one shoudln't be surprised that family court judges had signed
onto that notion as well. When family roles change (as they are changing),
divorce outcomes reflect that (which more and more they are).

Actually, I have seen a lot of men on soc.men saying that they do not want
to be sole breadwinners. They don't feel this contribution is appreciated
and they feel taken advantage of. I have a lot of sympathy for this view.

However, even when the mother does child caretaking and the father earns the
income, it does not follow from this that the mother should be given
custody. These are both essential roles and both parents have a right to be
with their children.

[]Since you are a breadwinner, you know what a difficult job that is. Itseems much more appropriate to me that people show gratitude andappreciation for this, rather than acting as if breadwinners are shirkingtheir duties. I have nothing against breadwinning. I don't consider it to be the only fulfillment of a parental role though.

When there are two parents they can split the roles between them. You seem
to be saying that a father whose primary contribution to his family is
breadwinning is not a good father. If so, I disagree.

[]>I know that in my own family, my husband would love to spend far more
timewith our children than he does. However, he is the sole breadwinner so
heputs in long hours and a long commute to provide for us all. He is
makingthe sacrifice of time with the children in order to provide our materialneeds. It seems to me very unfair to refer to this as a
"family-as-adjunctsetup" that deserves to be penalized in custody situations. He is awonderful father and if I were ever foolish enough to leave him, he wouldcertainly deserve at least joint custody. And the justice of that is, I presume, evident in what kind of
relationship he does hav with the children.

Our children adore their father. Even the 17 yo thinks his dad is a great
guy, and this is not a common attitude at that age. Even though my husband
is not around as much as he would like, he makes a point to spend as much
time with the kids as he can. He is a wonderful father and the children
love and respect him.
Your family does have choices concerning the single income and the long
commute, BTW.

Weighing all the advantages and disadvantages, our current arrangement seems
best for the time being. We do have plans to change the commute situation
within the next two years.

Jayne

In article <bpb1i7$1lgbhg$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas
says..."Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bp9d8k07di@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bp9bf5$1mfep2$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas says...[]It doesn't make much sense to say that a father *won't* get involved innurturing, if he is asking for joint custody of a young child. Depends. In many cases, custody isn't pressed for until the fatherremarries - he has found another female to do the job.I don't see anything wrong with that. He is still the child's father andstill deserves custody.

You dont' see anything wrong with not being interested in custody until there's
someone *else* around to do the childrearing? Sorry - no - I see that as
bearing directly on suitability for custody.
All I'm saying is that the old practice of granting custody of youngchildren followed from the very gender roles that the soc.men folks don't seem tohave a problem with. Tell enough folks that mothers should be doing the child caretaking, one shoudln't be surprised that family court judges had signedonto that notion as well. When family roles change (as they are changing),divorce outcomes reflect that (which more and more they are).Actually, I have seen a lot of men on soc.men saying that they do not wantto be sole breadwinners. They don't feel this contribution is appreciatedand they feel taken advantage of. I have a lot of sympathy for this view.

I see it more that they want to be the sole breadwinner, but also want
head-of-family status which they think goes with it.
However, even when the mother does child caretaking and the father earns theincome, it does not follow from this that the mother should be givencustody. These are both essential roles and both parents have a right to bewith their children.

No, it doesn't follow necessarily - that's not what I'm saying. In families
that work (meaning, their way of being a family works), it doesn't come to this
anyway.

Banty

In article <4S7ub.1068$VV6.22053@news.xtra.co.nz>, ChrisScaife says..."Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in messagenews:AH6ub.222244$HS4.1939212@attbi_s01... "ChrisScaife" <ChrisScaife@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:wbXtb.510$VV6.10014@news.xtra.co.nz... "Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:bp9ctc069r@drn.newsguy.com... > All he said is that it sounds like there are two sides to a story. No he didn't say that. Does 'he' now need you as an interpreter ? So now you want to prohibit others from replying to posts? ...Do I ? How do you figure that ?But I was evidently wrong and apologise to Banty: Sorry Banty you wereright, he doesneed you as an interpreter because I don't understand what he is saying.

No he just needs you to pay attention to him.

And you need to know there's no 'code' around here that others don't join in
with their own takes on what people say.

Banty

In article <4S7ub.1068$VV6.22053@news.xtra.co.nz>, ChrisScaife says..."Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
Let's see shall we...A posting was made on how to be a better father.The posting implied fathers are generally deficient in a number of areasthat could apply equally to both parents.Then we had a hypothetical but not untypical case where contact betweenfather and child(ren) is obstructed.This lead to the assertion that the father must have failed by notrespecting the mother and has therefor blown his chances.I proposed that it is perfectly possible that the father had done nothingwrong and the mother was quite simply bored with her husband (a situationthat is not uncommon).

Said father rather handily and immediately demonstrated that he had a problem
with respect.
If I understand you correctly this time, you wish to maintain that it is notplausible that a father would not in someway have contributed to his wife'sinfidelity.

Nope. Not necessarily. Just that his responses have demonstrated that he
doesn't deal well with things not going his way. And that doesn't bode well for
any relationship. No one here says there wasn't a problem with the wife, too.
But, if on a NG such as this, he having the option of at least behaving like a
rational person for the sake of appearances, his explicatives and
self-description of walking about the world worrying about who 'spects him are
pretty damn telling.
In other words, by implication you maintain that this hypothetical fathermust have been a deficient father in the first place and the question how hecan be a better one remains unanswerd because he simply doesn't deserve tobe a father right ?

Dunno. Pretty good odds there was some substantial contribution he made to the
situation.

Banty

What do you mean ?

Should I interpret this as an implication that fathers who are divorced
evidently didn't spend enough time with their children in the first case ?

Who are "y'all" ?

Stop talking in riddles!

"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bpb0n402bu4@drn.newsguy.com... In article <M87ub.1040$VV6.21911@news.xtra.co.nz>, ChrisScaife says...Finally someone who is talking sense :-)You can't be a father if you can't be with your kids.But what to do if your ex simply doesn't comply with contact order ?Take her to court again and get another order for her to not comply with
? Funny how y'all leave out the be-with-kids part that happens before the
divorce. Banty

In article <Sp8ub.1100$VV6.25055@news.xtra.co.nz>, ChrisScaife says...What do you mean ?Should I interpret this as an implication that fathers who are divorcedevidently didn't spend enough time with their children in the first case ?

No, that is not the implication. Not *necessarily*, anyway. But a focus on
what happened after a divorce, and an apparent blindness to what was happening
before the divorce may have to do with that, is rather telling.

There are divorced fathers who have full or joint custody and make it work, and
yes indeed there are some fathers screwed out of custody. All we can do reading
this thread is to see what attitudes are being expressed. The impression I have
is that in these 'groups a cadre has formed that like to reinforce each others'
habits of blaming the system and the mothers for everything.

It's not a gender thing. I recall two divorced moms posting here to misc.kids -
one who couldn't understand why her situation as regards child support to her ex
didn't allow her to not work when she had a new baby - it took a pretty long
thread to straighten that one out - as in 'sista thangs have changed 'cause you
changed them'. Another who was very focussed on what her ex was doing to her
supposedly, as he had custody. It took a good 30 posts to get to the point that
she admitted that she had lost custody because she had blown off the custody
hearings. Whoopsie. Kids need a parent who has it together enough to at least
show up at a custody hearing. There's two examples of dads with custody - add
to that the military case we've been discussing. In all these cases, even if we
weren't sympathetic to the father totally, we were looking hard at what the bio
mom was doing.
Who are "y'all" ?

As in "you all" - meaning the alt.dads-rights and soc.men discussants we have
seen suddenly turn up in misc.kids in this crossposted thread.

Banty

"ChrisScaife" <virustrap1@worksofcraft.com> wrote in message
news:M87ub.1040$VV6.21911@news.xtra.co.nz... Finally someone who is talking sense :-) You can't be a father if you can't be with your kids. But what to do if your ex simply doesn't comply with contact order ? Take her to court again and get another order for her to not comply with ?

Yes. At some point, if she keeps breaking court orders,
there will be consequences.

Your other choice, as I see it, is to just sit around and
be frustrated.


P. Tierney

R Isaacs J.D. wrote: The best way to be a father is by having custody or very frequent time with your children. Beware of the best interest platitude that may be meaningless.The truth is best interests do not mean best interests as in a common sense definition. Best interest is defined by statutes and case law and if you argue in court on the common sense definition instead of researching how the case and statutory law define best interest and fail to base your argument on those legal definitions you are fooling yourself and will lose. You must fight for your rights in court. Too many times guys complain about their situation when they agreed to an agreed order raping them of their rights because they didnt want to or couldn't spend the money necessary to win custody.See free tactics at fathersrights.org



Feminist definition: "Best interest of the child" --> 1. Whatever
custody decision mom wants. 2. Whatever gets mom the highest payments
for "child support." 3. That which hurts dad the most.

ChrisScaife wrote: What do you mean ? Should I interpret this as an implication that fathers who are divorced evidently didn't spend enough time with their children in the first case ? Who are "y'all" ?


Get a ladder, the cow**** is getting too deep and coming in too fast for
the shovels to keep up.

Bob

"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bpb39f02mp5@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bpb1i7$1lgbhg$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne
Kulikauskas says..."Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bp9d8k07di@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bp9bf5$1mfep2$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas says...[] >It doesn't make much sense to say that a father *won't* get involved
in >nurturing, if he is asking for joint custody of a young child. > Depends. In many cases, custody isn't pressed for until the fatherremarries - he has found another female to do the job.I don't see anything wrong with that. He is still the child's father andstill deserves custody. You dont' see anything wrong with not being interested in custody until
there's someone *else* around to do the childrearing? Sorry - no - I see that as bearing directly on suitability for custody.

I know that you have made parenting as a single parent work, Banty. But it
is easier when there are two parents to split the work. If a man thinks
that custody as a single parent is beyond his abilities, but is willing to
take it on as part of a couple, I don't see why he should be denied it.
All I'm saying is that the old practice of granting custody of youngchildren followed from the very gender roles that the soc.men folks don't seem
tohave a problem with. Tell enough folks that mothers should be doing the child caretaking, one shoudln't be surprised that family court judges had
signedonto that notion as well. When family roles change (as they are changing),divorce outcomes reflect that (which more and more they are).Actually, I have seen a lot of men on soc.men saying that they do not
wantto be sole breadwinners. They don't feel this contribution is
appreciatedand they feel taken advantage of. I have a lot of sympathy for this
view. I see it more that they want to be the sole breadwinner, but also want head-of-family status which they think goes with it.

Do you think there is something wrong with a man being the head of the
family? My husband is the head of our family and I am happy with this
arrangement.
However, even when the mother does child caretaking and the father earns
theincome, it does not follow from this that the mother should be givencustody. These are both essential roles and both parents have a right to
bewith their children. No, it doesn't follow necessarily - that's not what I'm saying. In
families that work (meaning, their way of being a family works), it doesn't come to
this anyway.

Of course, the ideal is that the couple stays together and who has custody
never becomes an issue.

Jayne

"ChrisScaife" <virustrap1@worksofcraft.com> wrote in
news:M87ub.1040$VV6.21911@news.xtra.co.nz:
Finally someone who is talking sense :-) You can't be a father if you can't be with your kids. But what to do if your ex simply doesn't comply with contact order ? Take her to court again and get another order for her to not comply with ?

In many states, when you have a contact (visitation) order from the court,
you can call the police and ask them to enforce it. So if you are at your
ex's house at the court-appointed time, and she won't let the kids go, the
police can come out and "make" her let them go. I assume that means that
they give her the choice of letting you take the kids or going to jail.

In other states, the father is basically screwed if his ex won't comply.
And he'd better never be late with a child support payment!

*You* have to decide whether the kids are better off with the
confrontation, police, and time spent with you, or better off without all
the tension and conflict, and without time with you. In many ways, the kids
lose either way.

Banty (Banty_member@newsguy.com) writes: In article <bpb1i7$1lgbhg$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas says..."Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bp9d8k07di@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bp9bf5$1mfep2$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas says...[] >It doesn't make much sense to say that a father *won't* get involved >in nurturing, if he is asking for joint custody of a young child. Depends. In many cases, custody isn't pressed for until the father remarries - he has found another female to do the job.I don't see anything wrong with that. He is still the child's father andstill deserves custody. You dont' see anything wrong with not being interested in custody until there's someone *else* around to do the childrearing? Sorry - no - I see that as bearing directly on suitability for custody.

Proof that this straw man of yours is statistically significant ?

Didn't think so...
All I'm saying is that the old practice of granting custody of youngchildren followed from the very gender roles that the soc.men folks don't seem tohave a problem with. Tell enough folks that mothers should be doing the child caretaking, one shoudln't be surprised that family court judges had signedonto that notion as well. When family roles change (as they are changing), divorce outcomes reflect that (which more and more they are).Actually, I have seen a lot of men on soc.men saying that they do not wantto be sole breadwinners. They don't feel this contribution is appreciatedand they feel taken advantage of. I have a lot of sympathy for this view. I see it more that they want to be the sole breadwinner, but also want head-of-family status which they think goes with it.

Yet, when Warren Farrell actually *bothered to find out*, he found the
eaxact *opposite*. See the intro to " The Myth Of Male Power ", where
he reports on speaking with about 10,000 men, and the majority said that
they would *welcome* the opportunity to be the SAH parent, provided that
this did not cause the *family* financial hardships, and that the wives
would agree ( Of course, they rarely ever do ).

So, his view, which contradicts yours, is based on *evidence* and yours
is, well, *prejudice*...
However, even when the mother does child caretaking and the father earnsthe income, it does not follow from this that the mother should be givencustody. These are both essential roles and both parents have a rightto be with their children. No, it doesn't follow necessarily - that's not what I'm saying. In families that work (meaning, their way of being a family works), it doesn't come to this anyway.

Non sequitur. Thats like saying, " Who needs automotive air bags,
in cars that *don't crash*. "

Look up " tautology ". Understand that in using that one, you
committed a fallicy, as well.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:22:45 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Feminist definition: "Best interest of the child" --> 1. Whatevercustody decision mom wants. 2. Whatever gets mom the highest paymentsfor "child support." 3. That which hurts dad the most.

Father's Rights definition: 1. Whatever custody decision the dad
wants. 2. Whatever decision allows him to pay the least amount
of money. 3. That which hurts the mom most.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article <bpblmt$1md4hn$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas
says..."Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bpb39f02mp5@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bpb1i7$1lgbhg$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas says..."Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bp9d8k07di@drn.newsguy.com...> In article <bp9bf5$1mfep2$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas> says...[]> >It doesn't make much sense to say that a father *won't* get involvedin> >nurturing, if he is asking for joint custody of a young child.> >>> Depends. In many cases, custody isn't pressed for until the fatherremarries -> he has found another female to do the job.I don't see anything wrong with that. He is still the child's father andstill deserves custody. You dont' see anything wrong with not being interested in custody untilthere's someone *else* around to do the childrearing? Sorry - no - I see that as bearing directly on suitability for custody.I know that you have made parenting as a single parent work, Banty. But itis easier when there are two parents to split the work. If a man thinksthat custody as a single parent is beyond his abilities, but is willing totake it on as part of a couple, I don't see why he should be denied it.

In these cases, Jayne - who do you think had been doing the hard single
parenting work up until that time??!? These are cases where one party blows off
custody until it's easy to do; whilst the other party sucks up and does the hard
work. In the meantime, the child settles into the mother's single parent
household. Only to have that changed when Dad can feather his nest right.

Sorry - no. Real parents don't blow off their kids until they find it easy -
when another female appears to take on the job, or the child is school aged, or
whatever. If that's the case, what other difficult situation will he find
'beyond his abilities'? Illness? A rough adolescence? What? Think about it.
You're excusifying. That kind of thing is a really bad sign long term for
parenting ability and committment, not a good sign.
> All I'm saying is that the old practice of granting custody of youngchildren> followed from the very gender roles that the soc.men folks don't seemtohave a> problem with. Tell enough folks that mothers should be doing the child> caretaking, one shoudln't be surprised that family court judges hadsignedonto> that notion as well. When family roles change (as they are changing),divorce> outcomes reflect that (which more and more they are).Actually, I have seen a lot of men on soc.men saying that they do notwantto be sole breadwinners. They don't feel this contribution isappreciatedand they feel taken advantage of. I have a lot of sympathy for thisview. I see it more that they want to be the sole breadwinner, but also want head-of-family status which they think goes with it.Do you think there is something wrong with a man being the head of thefamily? My husband is the head of our family and I am happy with thisarrangement.

There's something wrong with it when the other party doesn't agree.

Banty

In article <bpbs1i$gqr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... Banty (Banty_member@newsguy.com) writes: In article <bpb1i7$1lgbhg$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas says..."Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bp9d8k07di@drn.newsguy.com...> In article <bp9bf5$1mfep2$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas> says...[]> >It doesn't make much sense to say that a father *won't* get involved> >in nurturing, if he is asking for joint custody of a young child.>> Depends. In many cases, custody isn't pressed for until the father> remarries - he has found another female to do the job.I don't see anything wrong with that. He is still the child's father andstill deserves custody. You dont' see anything wrong with not being interested in custody until there's someone *else* around to do the childrearing? Sorry - no - I see that as bearing directly on suitability for custody. Proof that this straw man of yours is statistically significant ? Didn't think so...> All I'm saying is that the old practice of granting custody of youngchildren> followed from the very gender roles that the soc.men folks don't seem tohave a> problem with. Tell enough folks that mothers should be doing the child> caretaking, one shoudln't be surprised that family court judges had signedonto> that notion as well. When family roles change (as they are changing),> divorce outcomes reflect that (which more and more they are).Actually, I have seen a lot of men on soc.men saying that they do not wantto be sole breadwinners. They don't feel this contribution is appreciatedand they feel taken advantage of. I have a lot of sympathy for this view. I see it more that they want to be the sole breadwinner, but also want head-of-family status which they think goes with it. Yet, when Warren Farrell actually *bothered to find out*, he found the eaxact *opposite*. See the intro to " The Myth Of Male Power ", where he reports on speaking with about 10,000 men, and the majority said that they would *welcome* the opportunity to be the SAH parent, provided that this did not cause the *family* financial hardships, and that the wives would agree ( Of course, they rarely ever do ).

Note the 'and' in the preceeding sentence. Then ask the next question:
What were the individual statistics for the number of men who felt
that being the SAH parent would cause financial hardship and what was
the number number of wives that would agree? ( IIRC Farrell did not
interview 10,000 wives for his data.) So, his view, which contradicts yours, is based on *evidence* and yours is, well, *prejudice*...

Farrell's view is not supported well by the statistics---at least those
that Andre has given us.However, even when the mother does child caretaking and the father earnsthe income, it does not follow from this that the mother should be givencustody. These are both essential roles and both parents have a rightto be with their children. No, it doesn't follow necessarily - that's not what I'm saying. In families that work (meaning, their way of being a family works), it doesn't come to this anyway. Non sequitur. Thats like saying, " Who needs automotive air bags, in cars that *don't crash*. " Look up " tautology ". Understand that in using that one, you committed a fallicy, as well.
One of these days Andre will learn to spell both 'fallacy' and
'tautology'! ;-)



Mark Borgerson

"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bpbuv602r9r@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bpblmt$1md4hn$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne
Kulikauskas says..."Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bpb39f02mp5@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bpb1i7$1lgbhg$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas says...

[]I know that you have made parenting as a single parent work, Banty. But
itis easier when there are two parents to split the work. If a man thinksthat custody as a single parent is beyond his abilities, but is willing
totake it on as part of a couple, I don't see why he should be denied it. In these cases, Jayne - who do you think had been doing the hard single parenting work up until that time??!? These are cases where one party
blows off custody until it's easy to do; whilst the other party sucks up and does
the hard work. In the meantime, the child settles into the mother's single parent household. Only to have that changed when Dad can feather his nest right.

If the father is paying alimony and child support, then the divorced couple
is splitting the breadwinner and childcare roles. A divorced mother who is
being paid is not the same as being a single parent who does it all.
Sorry - no. Real parents don't blow off their kids until they find it
easy - when another female appears to take on the job, or the child is school
aged, or whatever. If that's the case, what other difficult situation will he find 'beyond his abilities'? Illness? A rough adolescence? What? Think about
it. You're excusifying. That kind of thing is a really bad sign long term for parenting ability and committment, not a good sign.

A man asking for custody when he does not feel like he will do a good job of
it would not be a good sign either. You seem to me to be taking an
unnecessarily negative view of the father's actions and motives. A father
has a right to be with his children. Unless he does something seriously
wrong to forfeit that right, he ought to retain it. I do not think that
organizing the roles in the family in a way that you disapprove of qualifies
as seriously wrong. A man choosing to emphasize the provider aspect of
parenting is not a good reason to deny him custody or access to his
children.

[]Do you think there is something wrong with a man being the head of thefamily? My husband is the head of our family and I am happy with thisarrangement. There's something wrong with it when the other party doesn't agree.

I do not see how a man could be head of the family if his wife did not
agree. It is her acceptance of his leadership that makes him the head.

Jayne

In article <bpc2of$1n1dos$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas
says..."Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bpbuv602r9r@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bpblmt$1md4hn$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas says..."Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bpb39f02mp5@drn.newsguy.com...> In article <bpb1i7$1lgbhg$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas> says...[]I know that you have made parenting as a single parent work, Banty. Butitis easier when there are two parents to split the work. If a man thinksthat custody as a single parent is beyond his abilities, but is willingtotake it on as part of a couple, I don't see why he should be denied it. In these cases, Jayne - who do you think had been doing the hard single parenting work up until that time??!? These are cases where one partyblows off custody until it's easy to do; whilst the other party sucks up and doesthe hard work. In the meantime, the child settles into the mother's single parent household. Only to have that changed when Dad can feather his nest right.If the father is paying alimony and child support, then the divorced coupleis splitting the breadwinner and childcare roles. A divorced mother who isbeing paid is not the same as being a single parent who does it all.

Alimony is rare nowdays, women having earning power. So what you get is Mom
doing the mommy-track thing or less, not building her earning power much (none
at all if there was alimony), whilst Dad keeps right on steaming until he can
get his nest feathered with the right help.
Sorry - no. Real parents don't blow off their kids until they find iteasy - when another female appears to take on the job, or the child is schoolaged, or whatever. If that's the case, what other difficult situation will he find 'beyond his abilities'? Illness? A rough adolescence? What? Think aboutit. You're excusifying. That kind of thing is a really bad sign long term for parenting ability and committment, not a good sign.A man asking for custody when he does not feel like he will do a good job ofit would not be a good sign either. You seem to me to be taking anunnecessarily negative view of the father's actions and motives. A fatherhas a right to be with his children. Unless he does something seriouslywrong to forfeit that right, he ought to retain it. I do not think thatorganizing the roles in the family in a way that you disapprove of qualifiesas seriously wrong. A man choosing to emphasize the provider aspect ofparenting is not a good reason to deny him custody or access to hischildren.

*Somebody* does the caretaking. Where would it leave the kids if neither 'felt
like (they) would do a good job...'

The father needs to be close to his kids as much as the mother. If, in your
case, he woudln't know what to do such that he wouldn't feel up to it, then
custody going to you would be just the natural consequence of his lack of
knowledge of the most immediately important parts of parenting.

If that's the situation in your family, that's the situation. You may want it
differnt - well, if you get divorced, be sure to give 1/2 custody to the Dad,
and let him figure it all out. It's the current default anyway. If it weren't
the default, it woudl be your perogative.
[]Do you think there is something wrong with a man being the head of thefamily? My husband is the head of our family and I am happy with thisarrangement. There's something wrong with it when the other party doesn't agree.I do not see how a man could be head of the family if his wife did notagree. It is her acceptance of his leadership that makes him the head.

And if she doesn't, and wants it to be a joint affair?

Banty

Don't bother with them Bob,
There is no point discussing anything with people who are not listening.

>How sad that you fail to understand the contributory factors of BOTH parties. Sounds to me like you're carrying some baggage from a failed relationship of your own that prevents you from seeing things clearly.

To me it sounds like you have a one track mind and are not receptive to
anyone else's ideas.

You are not even willing to accept a hypothetical case as the basis of
discussion and are stuck on the idea that a person is always in some way to
blame for his/her failed relationship.

Evidently a waste of time trying to discuss whether that should have any
bearing on that person's right to be with his/her children.

....and in fact you have already made clear that in your opinion such a
person would already have failed as a father.
we may naturally assume that since you have no gender bias the mother has
equally failed so presumably neither of them have the right to see their
kids ?!

You just go right on thinking you know it all and are so impartial.

I wonder what you will think when it happens to you.

CJS wrote:How sad that you fail to understand the contributory factors of BOTHparties. Sounds to me like you're carrying some baggage from a failedrelationship of your own that prevents you from seeing things clearly. To me it sounds like you have a one track mind and are not receptive to anyone else's ideas. You are not even willing to accept a hypothetical case as the basis of discussion and are stuck on the idea that a person is always in some way to blame for his/her failed relationship. Evidently a waste of time trying to discuss whether that should have any bearing on that person's right to be with his/her children. ...and in fact you have already made clear that in your opinion such a person would already have failed as a father. we may naturally assume that since you have no gender bias the mother has equally failed so presumably neither of them have the right to see their kids ?! You just go right on thinking you know it all and are so impartial. I wonder what you will think when it happens to you.

He's got the feminist "blame the nearest available man" lie well
learned. He sounds like a typical SNAG. Send him out to play with the
lesbos.

Bob

CJS wrote: Don't bother with them Bob, There is no point discussing anything with people who are not listening.

Another hopeless SNAG. Or maybe a dyke pretending. Pathetic.

Bob

I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.

Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.

I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.

i

In article <3FBA33D3.7040503@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote: CJS wrote:How sad that you fail to understand the contributory factors of BOTHparties. Sounds to me like you're carrying some baggage from a failedrelationship of your own that prevents you from seeing things clearly. To me it sounds like you have a one track mind and are not receptive to anyone else's ideas. You are not even willing to accept a hypothetical case as the basis of discussion and are stuck on the idea that a person is always in some way to blame for his/her failed relationship. Evidently a waste of time trying to discuss whether that should have any bearing on that person's right to be with his/her children. ...and in fact you have already made clear that in your opinion such a person would already have failed as a father. we may naturally assume that since you have no gender bias the mother has equally failed so presumably neither of them have the right to see their kids ?! You just go right on thinking you know it all and are so impartial. I wonder what you will think when it happens to you. He's got the feminist "blame the nearest available man" lie well learned. He sounds like a typical SNAG. Send him out to play with the lesbos. Bob

"CJS" <virustrap@worksofcraft.com> wrote in message
news:Xmkub.1765$VV6.39945@news.xtra.co.nz...How sad that you fail to understand the contributory factors of BOTH parties. Sounds to me like you're carrying some baggage from a failed relationship of your own that prevents you from seeing things clearly. To me it sounds like you have a one track mind and are not receptive to anyone else's ideas.

How can there be a falling out without contribution by both parties? At
best, there's a failure to communicate, and that is part of respect --
honoring the ideas, thoughts, and feelings of one's partner. That is what I
have said and repeated, all your attempts to put words in my mouth
notwithstanding.



--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FBA33D3.7040503@hotmail.com... CJS wrote:How sad that you fail to understand the contributory factors of BOTHparties. Sounds to me like you're carrying some baggage from a failedrelationship of your own that prevents you from seeing things clearly. To me it sounds like you have a one track mind and are not receptive to anyone else's ideas. You are not even willing to accept a hypothetical case as the basis of discussion and are stuck on the idea that a person is always in some way
to blame for his/her failed relationship. Evidently a waste of time trying to discuss whether that should have any bearing on that person's right to be with his/her children. ...and in fact you have already made clear that in your opinion such a person would already have failed as a father. we may naturally assume that since you have no gender bias the mother
has equally failed so presumably neither of them have the right to see their kids ?! You just go right on thinking you know it all and are so impartial. I wonder what you will think when it happens to you. He's got the feminist "blame the nearest available man" lie well learned. He sounds like a typical SNAG. Send him out to play with the lesbos.

You have selective "hearing" -- as I stated before, BOTH parties are
responsible. How many times must I repeat myself? And I also stated, had the
genders been reversed in the example, my position would have been the same.

So your attempts to put words in my mouth and your ad hominem attacks have
earned you an honored place in my TWIT filter. You're just not worth my
time.

<plonk>


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

"Ignoramus4244" <ignoramus4244@NOSPAM.4244.invalid> wrote in message
news:bpddm9$5o7$0@pita.alt.net... I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.

Because some divorced fathers harbor guilt over their own role in the
divorce, and so have an agenda to make the other side look completely to
blame, as though that somehow makes them blameless. Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced. I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.

Ignoramus4244 wrote: I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers. Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.

Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leave
them and take their kids, and 2. most married fathers are so busy
supporting their family and being fathers that they don't have much time
to spend on internet discussions.

I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.

Model being a good father, be strong and expect greatness, but don't be
abusive. And expect the mom to be jealous of the time you spend taking
the kids to scouts, etc.

Bob



i In article <3FBA33D3.7040503@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote:CJS wrote:>How sad that you fail to understand the contributory factors of BOTH>parties. Sounds to me like you're carrying some baggage from a failed>relationship of your own that prevents you from seeing things clearly.To me it sounds like you have a one track mind and are not receptive toanyone else's ideas.You are not even willing to accept a hypothetical case as the basis ofdiscussion and are stuck on the idea that a person is always in some way toblame for his/her failed relationship.Evidently a waste of time trying to discuss whether that should have anybearing on that person's right to be with his/her children....and in fact you have already made clear that in your opinion such aperson would already have failed as a father.we may naturally assume that since you have no gender bias the mother hasequally failed so presumably neither of them have the right to see theirkids ?!You just go right on thinking you know it all and are so impartial.I wonder what you will think when it happens to you.He's got the feminist "blame the nearest available man" lie welllearned. He sounds like a typical SNAG. Send him out to play with thelesbos.Bob

In article <XIrub.176574$mZ5.1245451@attbi_s54>, Byron Canfield wrote: "Ignoramus4244" <ignoramus4244@NOSPAM.4244.invalid> wrote in message news:bpddm9$5o7$0@pita.alt.net... I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers. Because some divorced fathers harbor guilt over their own role in the divorce, and so have an agenda to make the other side look completely to blame, as though that somehow makes them blameless.

That is a possible explanation.

Somehow, instead of discussing how to be better fathers, some
individuals instantly switched the topic to why women are so bad and
why the legal system is so unfair.

I am surprised that some of them were not interested in discussing how
to best be a father even if they are divorced.

i
Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced. I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.

In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote: Ignoramus4244 wrote: I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers. Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced. Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leave them and take their kids,

Um, most people actually do stay married. Why do you think that the
majority of fathers are divorced?
and 2. most married fathers are so busy supporting their family and being fathers that they don't have much time to spend on internet discussions.

Now that makes some sense, although some (like me) still have a little
time to BS on the internet even after work and parenting.
I am interested in how a married man can be a good father. Model being a good father, be strong and expect greatness, but don't be abusive. And expect the mom to be jealous of the time you spend taking the kids to scouts, etc.

Thank you for your practical suggestions.

i

"Byron Canfield" (barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com) writes: "CJS" <virustrap@worksofcraft.com> wrote in message news:Xmkub.1765$VV6.39945@news.xtra.co.nz...How sad that you fail to understand the contributory factors of BOTH parties. Sounds to me like you're carrying some baggage from a failed relationship of your own that prevents you from seeing things clearly. To me it sounds like you have a one track mind and are not receptive to anyone else's ideas. How can there be a falling out without contribution by both parties?\

Very, very easily. All it takes, especially in a " no-fault divorce "
environment, is for *one person* ( Usually the woman: 70+% of the time,
according to Sanford Braver, and 91% of the time, according to Shere
Hite ) to decide " I want outa here ".

The reasons for that desire can be any one of literally millions.

Have you never arrived at a wish to do something all on your own ?
At best, there's a failure to communicate, and that is part of respect -- honoring the ideas, thoughts, and feelings of one's partner. That is what I have said and repeated, all your attempts to put words in my mouth notwithstanding.

And, " at best ", you've been thunderingly... insufficient.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Byron Canfield wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3FBA33D3.7040503@hotmail.com...CJS wrote:>How sad that you fail to understand the contributory factors of BOTH>parties. Sounds to me like you're carrying some baggage from a failed>relationship of your own that prevents you from seeing things clearly.To me it sounds like you have a one track mind and are not receptive toanyone else's ideas.You are not even willing to accept a hypothetical case as the basis ofdiscussion and are stuck on the idea that a person is always in some way toblame for his/her failed relationship.Evidently a waste of time trying to discuss whether that should have anybearing on that person's right to be with his/her children....and in fact you have already made clear that in your opinion such aperson would already have failed as a father.we may naturally assume that since you have no gender bias the mother hasequally failed so presumably neither of them have the right to see theirkids ?!You just go right on thinking you know it all and are so impartial.I wonder what you will think when it happens to you.He's got the feminist "blame the nearest available man" lie welllearned. He sounds like a typical SNAG. Send him out to play with thelesbos. You have selective "hearing" -- as I stated before, BOTH parties are responsible.


IOW: When the woman is responsible you are unable to accept it, and
insist that the man is also respoinsbie. Blame the nearest available
man no matter what.

How many times must I repeat myself? And I also stated, had the genders been reversed in the example, my position would have been the same.

Typical SNAG, blame the man, kind of guy. No matter how many times you
repeat it, it still comes out the same.

So your attempts to put words in my mouth and your ad hominem attacks have earned you an honored place in my TWIT filter. You're just not worth my time. <plonk>

LOL. We should be so lucky.

Bob

In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Ignoramus4244 wrote: I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers. Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced. Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leave them and take their kids, and 2. most married fathers are so busy supporting their family and being fathers that they don't have much time to spend on internet discussions. I am interested in how a married man can be a good father. Model being a good father, be strong and expect greatness, but don't be abusive. And expect the mom to be jealous of the time you spend taking the kids to scouts, etc. Bob

Man, you REALLY hate women! Some of us are decent, and enjoy equitable
co-parenting with our partner-husbands-the-father of our children.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Ignoramus4244 wrote: I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers. Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leavethem and take their kids, and 2. most married fathers are so busysupporting their family and being fathers that they don't have much timeto spend on internet discussions.

I wonder if a misc.kids regular ever went over to join your 'group. There are a
lot of fathers here. Mostly married, some divorced or widowed.

Because by and large here, folks are here discussing their kids because their
kids are primary to them. Not career-building, not hobby-pursuing, and not
*****ing and moaning about all womankind or what bloke is boffing who. The
kids.

Banty

Ignoramus4244 wrote: In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote:Ignoramus4244 wrote:I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leavethem and take their kids, Um, most people actually do stay married. Why do you think that the majority of fathers are divorced?

In California the majority of moms don't bother to marry the father in
the first place. The rest of the US isn't far behind.

Among those females who are married, 10% - 30% of fathers are the guy
she's shagging while her husband is out earning her living.

Something over 50% of marriages end in divorce, usually initiated by the
female who wants "to find myself."

The actual percentage of fathers who married the mother and stay married
to her is much less than half, usually through no fault of their own.

and 2. most married fathers are so busy supporting their family andbeing fathers that they don't have much time to spend on internetdiscussions. Now that makes some sense, although some (like me) still have a little time to BS on the internet even after work and parenting.

Married men have much less time to spend on any leisure than women or
singles. So much time is spent earning a living, trying to do "50% of
housework" demanded by femroids, and still spend time with the kids that
femroids have become the dominant market for TV, film, books, and most
other leisure time products and services.

I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.Model being a good father, be strong and expect greatness, but don't beabusive. And expect the mom to be jealous of the time you spend takingthe kids to scouts, etc. Thank you for your practical suggestions. i

You're welcome.

Bob
Father of 3 very successful young men.

Byron Canfield wrote: "Ignoramus4244" <ignoramus4244@NOSPAM.4244.invalid> wrote in message news:bpddm9$5o7$0@pita.alt.net...I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers. Because some divorced fathers harbor guilt over their own role in the divorce, and so have an agenda to make the other side look completely to blame, as though that somehow makes them blameless.


Bryan's typical "blame the nearest available man" nonsense comes right
out of SHAG feminism. No matter what the female does, some man is to
blame. Note the focus on "guilt" feelings that he ascribes to men who
are the victims of pernicious femroids. SNAG talk all the way.

Bob



Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.

Ignoramus4244 wrote: In article <XIrub.176574$mZ5.1245451@attbi_s54>, Byron Canfield wrote:"Ignoramus4244" <ignoramus4244@NOSPAM.4244.invalid> wrote in messagenews:bpddm9$5o7$0@pita.alt.net...I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.Because some divorced fathers harbor guilt over their own role in thedivorce, and so have an agenda to make the other side look completely toblame, as though that somehow makes them blameless. That is a possible explanation. Somehow, instead of discussing how to be better fathers, some individuals instantly switched the topic to why women are so bad and why the legal system is so unfair.


Probably because most fathers have to deal with the grossly unfair legal
system as part of their every day fathering. Its a fact of life for
most fathers whether SHAGs like it or not.

I am surprised that some of them were not interested in discussing how to best be a father even if they are divorced. i

That is what they are discussing. Where have you been?

Bob



Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.

Rauni wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:28:24 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Ignoramus4244 wrote:In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote:>Ignoramus4244 wrote:>>>>I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.>>>>Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.>>Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leave>them and take their kids,Um, most people actually do stay married. Why do you think that themajority of fathers are divorced?In California the majority of moms don't bother to marry the father inthe first place. The rest of the US isn't far behind. Sorry Bob your numbers are wrong (gee what a surprise) it is 31% in California.

Not according to the census figures, but if you have a cite for your
silly claim lets see it.

And the number of teenagers having babies out of wedlock is dropping.

Changing the topic is not even a disagreement. Pathetic.

Bob


Among those females who are married, 10% - 30% of fathers are the guyshe's shagging while her husband is out earning her living.Something over 50% of marriages end in divorce, usually initiated by thefemale who wants "to find myself."The actual percentage of fathers who married the mother and stay marriedto her is much less than half, usually through no fault of their own.>and 2. most married fathers are so busy supporting their family and>being fathers that they don't have much time to spend on internet>discussions.Now that makes some sense, although some (like me) still have a littletime to BS on the internet even after work and parenting.Married men have much less time to spend on any leisure than women orsingles. So much time is spent earning a living, trying to do "50% ofhousework" demanded by femroids, and still spend time with the kids thatfemroids have become the dominant market for TV, film, books, and mostother leisure time products and services.>>I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.>>Model being a good father, be strong and expect greatness, but don't be>abusive. And expect the mom to be jealous of the time you spend taking>the kids to scouts, etc.Thank you for your practical suggestions.iYou're welcome.BobFather of 3 very successful young men. "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." -- Oscar Wilde

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:28:24 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ignoramus4244 wrote: In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote:Ignoramus4244 wrote:>I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.>>Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leavethem and take their kids, Um, most people actually do stay married. Why do you think that the majority of fathers are divorced?In California the majority of moms don't bother to marry the father inthe first place. The rest of the US isn't far behind.

Sorry Bob your numbers are wrong (gee what a surprise) it is 31% in
California. And the number of teenagers having babies out of wedlock
is dropping.Among those females who are married, 10% - 30% of fathers are the guyshe's shagging while her husband is out earning her living.Something over 50% of marriages end in divorce, usually initiated by thefemale who wants "to find myself."The actual percentage of fathers who married the mother and stay marriedto her is much less than half, usually through no fault of their own.and 2. most married fathers are so busy supporting their family andbeing fathers that they don't have much time to spend on internetdiscussions. Now that makes some sense, although some (like me) still have a little time to BS on the internet even after work and parenting.Married men have much less time to spend on any leisure than women orsingles. So much time is spent earning a living, trying to do "50% ofhousework" demanded by femroids, and still spend time with the kids thatfemroids have become the dominant market for TV, film, books, and mostother leisure time products and services.>I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.Model being a good father, be strong and expect greatness, but don't beabusive. And expect the mom to be jealous of the time you spend takingthe kids to scouts, etc. Thank you for your practical suggestions. iYou're welcome.BobFather of 3 very successful young men.



"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure
and never simple." -- Oscar Wilde

In article <3FBA56B8.3000701@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote: Ignoramus4244 wrote: In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote:Ignoramus4244 wrote:>I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.>Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leavethem and take their kids, Um, most people actually do stay married. Why do you think that the majority of fathers are divorced? In California the majority of moms don't bother to marry the father in the first place. The rest of the US isn't far behind.

So now you have changed your story! First you said that most fathers
are divorced, and now you say that most moms do not even marry the
fathers of their children.
and 2. most married fathers are so busy supporting their family andbeing fathers that they don't have much time to spend on internetdiscussions. Now that makes some sense, although some (like me) still have a little time to BS on the internet even after work and parenting. Married men have much less time to spend on any leisure than women or singles. So much time is spent earning a living, trying to do "50% of housework" demanded by femroids, and still spend time with the kids that femroids have become the dominant market for TV, film, books, and most other leisure time products and services.

What if the wife works also, don't they generally sp-end equal amounts
of time?

i
>I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.Model being a good father, be strong and expect greatness, but don't beabusive. And expect the mom to be jealous of the time you spend takingthe kids to scouts, etc. Thank you for your practical suggestions. i You're welcome. Bob Father of 3 very successful young men.

In article <3FBA6A49.2070803@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rauni wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:28:24 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Ignoramus4244 wrote:>In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote:>>>>Ignoramus4244 wrote:>>>>>>>I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.>>>>>>Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.>>>>Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leave>>them and take their kids,>>>Um, most people actually do stay married. Why do you think that the>majority of fathers are divorced?In California the majority of moms don't bother to marry the father inthe first place. The rest of the US isn't far behind. Sorry Bob your numbers are wrong (gee what a surprise) it is 31% in California. Not according to the census figures, but if you have a cite for your silly claim lets see it.

According to the information at the EHDP website ,
between 1989 at 2001, in the state of California, 32.4% of all babies
were born to single mothers. Frankly, that's higher than I would have
guessed, but still not a majority by any stretch. I know the rate has
been going down, so a current rate of 31% would not surprise me.

(http://www.ehdp.com/birtha/index.htm)

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

And what about fathers who are cheaters, wife beaters, drunks, child
abusers, pedophiles, narcotics addicts, heavy smokers, criminals,
deadbeats, tax avoiders, mentally disturbed, lazy, incompetent
parents, obese, habitual overspenders, gamblers, liars, thiefs, and so
on and so forth?

Why lump those fathers together with good, honest fathers in those
statistics?

Does a child molestor deserve to be granted custody and visitation?

i

In article <mehouck-32CDC8.12040118112003@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>, dragonlady wrote: Interestingly, my mother was just reading a survey that had been done of high school age girls. One of the questions was about whether, if and when they got married, they expected to stay married to that person for the rest of their lives. When this question had been asked of high school girls in the 40's, virtually 100% said "yes" -- now it was closer to only half. I consider that sad -- I'd like to see more committment to making relationships last "until death parts us", while still recognizing that sometimes divorce is inevitable. I find myself feeling angry and sad when a couple seems to be getting divorced for what seem to me to be frivoulous reasons.

Maybe it is sad that many marriages dissolve.

But the girls who were surveyed are being realistic and not cynical.

If half of marriages dissolve, then, in high school, you cannot do
much better than just estimate your chance of success at 50% as
well. You do not even yet know who will become your Mr. Right!

It seems that children of intact families do a little better than
children of divorced parents, so perhaps some girls could say 55% and
some would say 45%. But that is the best that they can do in high
school.

When I was getting married, I estimated my chances of staying married
at just 60% or so.

After I lost weight, I estimate my chances of keeping it off at about
45-55% as well.


i

In article <bpduk5$3st$3@pita.alt.net>,
Ignoramus4244 <ignoramus4244@NOSPAM.4244.invalid> wrote:
In article <mehouck-32CDC8.12040118112003@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>, dragonlady wrote: Interestingly, my mother was just reading a survey that had been done of high school age girls. One of the questions was about whether, if and when they got married, they expected to stay married to that person for the rest of their lives. When this question had been asked of high school girls in the 40's, virtually 100% said "yes" -- now it was closer to only half. I consider that sad -- I'd like to see more committment to making relationships last "until death parts us", while still recognizing that sometimes divorce is inevitable. I find myself feeling angry and sad when a couple seems to be getting divorced for what seem to me to be frivoulous reasons. Maybe it is sad that many marriages dissolve. But the girls who were surveyed are being realistic and not cynical. If half of marriages dissolve, then, in high school, you cannot do much better than just estimate your chance of success at 50% as well. You do not even yet know who will become your Mr. Right! It seems that children of intact families do a little better than children of divorced parents, so perhaps some girls could say 55% and some would say 45%. But that is the best that they can do in high school. When I was getting married, I estimated my chances of staying married at just 60% or so. After I lost weight, I estimate my chances of keeping it off at about 45-55% as well. i

I don't have the statistics in front of me, but, while 50% of marriages
may end in divorce, 50% of FIRST marriages do not -- the stats for
first marriages are much more encouraging. Apparently, if you have been
divorced once, your chances of your second marriage ending in divorce
are higher -- look at the number of people who are on 3rd and 4th
marriages.

Think about 3 brothers. All three marry. One divorces, gets married
again, and divorces again, the other two remain married to their first
wives. Therefore, half of all of the marriages ended in divorce -- but
only one-third of the first marriages ended in divorce.

When I got married, I don't recall estimating my chances of staying
married -- but I didn't imagine that I would ever get divorced, either.
I still feel that way -- this committment is for life, and I can't
imagine my life without my partner.

meh

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On 18 Nov 2003 15:26:01 GMT, Ignoramus4244
<ignoramus4244@NOSPAM.4244.invalid> wrote:
I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.i

Pay attention to your relationship with your wife and spend
time with your children. Both are essential.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:34:48 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Probably because most fathers have to deal with the grossly unfair legalsystem as part of their every day fathering. Its a fact of life formost fathers whether SHAGs like it or not.

No, *most* fathers are not even divorced, though divorce is fairly
common. 60% or more of children still live with two parents.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:25:42 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers. Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leavethem and take their kids, and 2. most married fathers are so busysupporting their family and being fathers that they don't have much timeto spend on internet discussions.

Wrong. The majority on your newsgroup, possibly, but not the majority
of all men and not the majority on the groups you are x-posting to
either, at least not on misc.kids.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:28:24 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Something over 50% of marriages end in divorce, usually initiated by thefemale who wants "to find myself."

Oh, yeah, sure.

And those iniated by the man in his middle age crisis who wants a
trophy female on his arm don't count, I suppose.

Your stats are off.

Some marriages end because the woman iniates it, some because
the man iniates it and others are actually iniated by both parties for
many different reasons.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:52:11 GMT, dragonlady
<mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:
In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>wrote: Ignoramus4244 wrote: I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers. Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced. Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leave them and take their kids, and 2. most married fathers are so busy supporting their family and being fathers that they don't have much time to spend on internet discussions. I am interested in how a married man can be a good father. Model being a good father, be strong and expect greatness, but don't be abusive. And expect the mom to be jealous of the time you spend taking the kids to scouts, etc. BobMan, you REALLY hate women! Some of us are decent, and enjoy equitableco-parenting with our partner-husbands-the-father of our children.meh

Or even equitable grandparent.

My husband is wonderful with children. He was fantastic with our two
and is now a great grandpa to our granddaughter and I am sure he will
include our grandson in that when he is born next year as well.

He has no qualms about doing diapering and feeding even now and
he never did. And we shared the housework too and the shopping for
*most* of the marriage, though I did more when my children were
very young and he was working in a stressful job.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:44:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Among "faithful" married women some 10% -30% of their children arefathered by some guy they are shagging while their husband is workinghimself into an early grave to support her.

And you get this from?

First of all, there are women who cheat. But there are just as many
men who cheat so it's a wash in terms of the statistics despite being
a problem for the individual families it affects.



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:46:03 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
You have selective "hearing" -- as I stated before, BOTH parties are responsible.IOW: When the woman is responsible you are unable to accept it, andinsist that the man is also respoinsbie. Blame the nearest availableman no matter what.

When the man is blamed, the woman in the relationship is generally
partly responsible too.

There are very few situations where only one party is at fault in the
breakup of a marriage regardless of the immediate reason for the
person who iniates the divorce having justification. In cases of
abuse by one person, then the blame is justifiably placed on the
abuser, but in cases of infidelity, there is usually a reason *in* the
relationship itself that needs to be addressed.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 18 Nov 2003 16:42:44 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
How can there be a falling out without contribution by both parties?\Very, very easily. All it takes, especially in a " no-fault divorce "environment, is for *one person* ( Usually the woman: 70+% of the time,according to Sanford Braver, and 91% of the time, according to ShereHite ) to decide " I want outa here ".The reasons for that desire can be any one of literally millions.Have you never arrived at a wish to do something all on your own ?

But that *I want out of here* means that the two people have not
been communicating and not been really getting along at all. If
it comes as a surprise to you that the wife wants out, then you have
obviously not been listening to her to begin with. The same is true
of the wife for whom it comes as a total surprise. There is something
wrong because neither of you *saw* the other person's reality at all.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

....
Um, most people actually do stay married. Why do you think that the majority of fathers are divorced? In California the majority of moms don't bother to marry the father in the first place. The rest of the US isn't far behind. So now you have changed your story! First you said that most fathers are divorced, and now you say that most moms do not even marry the fathers of their children.

The two are not in conflict. All the fathers coud be divorced (from someone
else)
and none of the mothers could be married, while the majority of married
couples don't have kids and stay married ;-)

Same thing with the number of babies born to unmarried mothers, it depend
how many babies are born to the same mother.
In any case it is an awfully high figure don't you think ?

Definitely time someone did something to find out what is going wrong.
instead of arguing about percentages in this state and that state.

toto wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:34:48 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Probably because most fathers have to deal with the grossly unfair legalsystem as part of their every day fathering. Its a fact of life formost fathers whether SHAGs like it or not. No, *most* fathers are not even divorced, though divorce is fairly common. 60% or more of children still live with two parents. Dorothy

Please provide some source on that statistic. Thanks.

Is that statistic from California where the majority of children are
born to women who don't bother getting married, or from the rest of the
US where the percentage of unmarried births is still less than half?

We await your reply.

Bob

In article <3FBAB234.7090102@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
toto wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:34:48 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Probably because most fathers have to deal with the grossly unfair legalsystem as part of their every day fathering. Its a fact of life formost fathers whether SHAGs like it or not. No, *most* fathers are not even divorced, though divorce is fairly common. 60% or more of children still live with two parents. Dorothy Please provide some source on that statistic. Thanks. Is that statistic from California where the majority of children are born to women who don't bother getting married, or from the rest of the US where the percentage of unmarried births is still less than half? We await your reply. Bob
Do you think if you keep repeating this it will magically become true?

Once again, fewer than 1/3 of babies *in California* are born to women
who are single at the time of the baby's birth. If you have different
statistics, please tell us where they are published, so we can confirm
that you have not just pulled this number out of thin air.

While I might still think this is way too high, it is NOT more than half.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote: In article <3FBA6A49.2070803@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Rauni wrote:On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:28:24 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>Ignoramus4244 wrote:>>>>In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>>>Ignoramus4244 wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.>>>>>>>>Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.>>>>>>Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leave>>>them and take their kids,>>>>>>Um, most people actually do stay married. Why do you think that the>>majority of fathers are divorced?>>In California the majority of moms don't bother to marry the father in>the first place. The rest of the US isn't far behind.Sorry Bob your numbers are wrong (gee what a surprise) it is 31% inCalifornia.Not according to the census figures, but if you have a cite for yoursilly claim lets see it. According to the information at the EHDP website , between 1989 at 2001, in the state of California, 32.4% of all babies were born to single mothers. Frankly, that's higher than I would have guessed, but still not a majority by any stretch. I know the rate has been going down, so a current rate of 31% would not surprise me. (http://www.ehdp.com/birtha/index.htm) meh

Who is that computer software company? Are they an authority? Probably
not.

According to the US Census "among women in their thirties, about 4 out
of every 10 had born a child out of wedlock."
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-194.pdf Page 33.
4 of 10 is 40% of women, and many of those have more than one child.

Nevertheless some more looking is in order.

Bob

Ignoramus4244 wrote: And what about fathers who are cheaters, wife beaters, drunks, child abusers, pedophiles, narcotics addicts, heavy smokers, criminals, deadbeats, tax avoiders, mentally disturbed, lazy, incompetent parents, obese, habitual overspenders, gamblers, liars, thiefs, and so on and so forth?

Your pile of misandrist stereotypes is very offensive.

Let's be fair and balanced here.

What about mothers who are cheaters, husband beaters, drunks, child
abusers, pedophiles, narcotics addicts, heavy smokers, criminals,
deadbeats, tax avoiders, mentally disturbed, lazy, incompetent parents,
obese, habitual overspenders, gamblers, liars, thiefs, and so on and so
forth?

Why lump those fathers together with good, honest fathers in those statistics? Does a child molestor deserve to be granted custody and visitation? i

Why do you assume a father is a "child molester"? Statistically mothers
do about twice as much child abuse as fathers. In fact the safest place
for a child is in the home of his father. The most dangerous place is
in the home of mother and her latest shackup.

Bob

Ignoramus4244 wrote: In article <3FBA56B8.3000701@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote:Ignoramus4244 wrote:In article <3FBA4806.3040708@hotmail.com>, Bob wrote:>Ignoramus4244 wrote:>>>I wonder why this discussion has been hijacked by divorced fathers.>>Plenty of fathers who are reading this thread are not divorced.>>Perhaps because 1. the majority of fathers have had their wife leave>them and take their kids,Um, most people actually do stay married. Why do you think that themajority of fathers are divorced?In California the majority of moms don't bother to marry the father inthe first place. The rest of the US isn't far behind. So now you have changed your story! First you said that most fathers are divorced, and now you say that most moms do not even marry the fathers of their children.


Perhaps you are right. The majority of moms take the kids but not all
were married to the father first. Either way the custody question and
"family" court is very important to most fathers' ability to be a good
father.

Bob


>and 2. most married fathers are so busy supporting their family and>being fathers that they don't have much time to spend on internet>discussions.Now that makes some sense, although some (like me) still have a littletime to BS on the internet even after work and parenting.Married men have much less time to spend on any leisure than women orsingles. So much time is spent earning a living, trying to do "50% ofhousework" demanded by femroids, and still spend time with the kids thatfemroids have become the dominant market for TV, film, books, and mostother leisure time products and services. What if the wife works also, don't they generally sp-end equal amounts of time? i>>I am interested in how a married man can be a good father.>>Model being a good father, be strong and expect greatness, but don't be>abusive. And expect the mom to be jealous of the time you spend taking>the kids to scouts, etc.Thank you for your practical suggestions.iYou're welcome.BobFather of 3 very successful young men.

"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:ot4lrvklh6gl1l55r8rdqs4n8350et3jpj@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:28:24 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Something over 50% of marriages end in divorce, usually initiated by thefemale who wants "to find myself." Oh, yeah, sure. And those iniated by the man in his middle age crisis who wants a trophy female on his arm don't count, I suppose. Your stats are off. Some marriages end because the woman iniates it, some because the man iniates it and others are actually iniated by both parties for many different reasons.

I've seen stats on this is several different places and they all agree that
the majority of divorces are initiated by the woman and that most of these
are for reasons like finding oneself or "we were growing apart" rather than
more serious things like abuse or infidelity.

Jayne

toto wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:44:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Among "faithful" married women some 10% -30% of their children arefathered by some guy they are shagging while their husband is workinghimself into an early grave to support her. And you get this from?


There have been a number of blind studies from the US, UK, Canada, etc.
A long list of links was posted on soc.men a while ago. The 30%
figure came from a very large US Blood Bank study. The 10% figure was
the low end and may not be as accurate as the rest.

Bob

First of all, there are women who cheat. But there are just as many men who cheat so it's a wash in terms of the statistics despite being a problem for the individual families it affects. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:44:21 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Among "faithful" married women some 10% -30% of their children arefathered by some guy they are shagging while their husband is workinghimself into an early grave to support her. And you get this from? First of all, there are women who cheat. But there are just as many men who cheat so it's a wash in terms of the statistics despite being a problem for the individual families it affects.

You're Feministically ( aka misandristically ) MS-ing the point.

Cheating men CANNOT fool their wives into believing that a child born
of the affair is *hers*, biologically*.

Cheating women CAN AND DO fool their husbands into believing that a
child born of the affair is *his*, biologically.

The two situations are NOT equal, in the harms that can be dropped
on the *non-cheating* spouse...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:28:24 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Something over 50% of marriages end in divorce, usually initiated by thefemale who wants "to find myself." Oh, yeah, sure.

Sanford Braver's numbers ( From " Divorced Dads; Shattering The
Myths " ) place women initiated dirorves at over 70%. None of the
proper reasons for divorce made women's own stated top five
reasons ( Those proper reasons would be abuse, addiction, abandonment
and adultery )..

Shere Hite, placed the ending of relationships ( Not just marriages )
at 91% female initiated.
And those iniated by the man in his middle age crisis who wants a trophy female on his arm don't count, I suppose.

" Feminist-Speak: Always blame the *man*. "
Your stats are off.

Yours are... *fantasy*.
Some marriages end because the woman iniates it, some because the man iniates it and others are actually iniated by both parties for many different reasons.

Not in anything close to the same proportions...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 18 Nov 2003 16:42:44 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: How can there be a falling out without contribution by both parties?\Very, very easily. All it takes, especially in a " no-fault divorce "environment, is for *one person* ( Usually the woman: 70+% of the time,according to Sanford Braver, and 91% of the time, according to ShereHite ) to decide " I want outa here ".The reasons for that desire can be any one of literally millions.Have you never arrived at a wish to do something all on your own ? But that *I want out of here* means that the two people have not been communicating and not been really getting along at all.

Which does NOT prove that the problem lies with *both spouses*.
If it comes as a surprise to you that the wife wants out, then you have obviously not been listening to her to begin with.

Lets have a precis of that:

" Everything that the wife doesn't like, is the *man's fault*. "

Got it. Now, we can see *why* so many marriages fail...
The same is true of the wife for whom it comes as a total surprise.

Notwithstanding that the proportions of those two situations are
about an order of magnitude apart...
There is something wrong because neither of you *saw* the other person's reality at all.

Free Clue: Not everyone lives in a " relality ".

You, for instance...

" Misogynist: A man who is winning an argument with a Feminist. "

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bpc3f30akq@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bpc2of$1n1dos$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne
Kulikauskas says...

[]A man asking for custody when he does not feel like he will do a good job
ofit would not be a good sign either. You seem to me to be taking anunnecessarily negative view of the father's actions and motives. A
fatherhas a right to be with his children. Unless he does something seriouslywrong to forfeit that right, he ought to retain it. I do not think thatorganizing the roles in the family in a way that you disapprove of
qualifiesas seriously wrong. A man choosing to emphasize the provider aspect ofparenting is not a good reason to deny him custody or access to hischildren. *Somebody* does the caretaking. Where would it leave the kids if neither
'felt like (they) would do a good job...'

I expect the children would go into foster care or stay with relatives.
Sometimes neither parent is in circumstances where they can do a good job of
parenting and someone else does it.
The father needs to be close to his kids as much as the mother. If, in
your case, he woudln't know what to do such that he wouldn't feel up to it,
then custody going to you would be just the natural consequence of his lack of knowledge of the most immediately important parts of parenting.

Being the breadwinner is also an "immediately important part of parenting".
You really seem to me to be undervaluing it.
My husband makes an essential contribution to our family and it does not
seem fair to me that other men who make this contribution to their families
would have it held against them during custody disputes.
If that's the situation in your family, that's the situation. You may
want it differnt - well, if you get divorced, be sure to give 1/2 custody to the
Dad, and let him figure it all out. It's the current default anyway. If it
weren't the default, it woudl be your perogative.

I'm not foolish enough to leave a man who is such a wonderful husband and
father. Nor is he likely to leave me, since I put a lot of thought into
keeping him happy. However, he is capable of managing without me when
necessary. In the spring, he thought I needed a break and sent me on a
retreat while he took some vacation time to run the home. He did a great
job.

[]I do not see how a man could be head of the family if his wife did notagree. It is her acceptance of his leadership that makes him the head. And if she doesn't, and wants it to be a joint affair?

The husband and wife need to agree on how they are going to organize their
family. They should talk about this before they get married.

Jayne

toto wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:46:03 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: You have selective "hearing" -- as I stated before, BOTH parties areresponsible.IOW: When the woman is responsible you are unable to accept it, andinsist that the man is also respoinsbie. Blame the nearest availableman no matter what. When the man is blamed, the woman in the relationship is generally partly responsible too. There are very few situations where only one party is at fault in the breakup of a marriage regardless of the immediate reason for the person who iniates the divorce having justification. In cases of abuse by one person, then the blame is justifiably placed on the abuser, but in cases of infidelity, there is usually a reason *in* the relationship itself that needs to be addressed. Dorothy


Sometimes perhaps, but that "blame the nearest available man" crap is
way over done. Femroids always excuse the woman who is "not
responsible" for anything she did. Sorry Toots, its been done so often
it doesn't fly any more.

Bob

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:58:44 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
toto wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:34:48 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Probably because most fathers have to deal with the grossly unfair legalsystem as part of their every day fathering. Its a fact of life formost fathers whether SHAGs like it or not. No, *most* fathers are not even divorced, though divorce is fairly common. 60% or more of children still live with two parents. DorothyPlease provide some source on that statistic. Thanks.Is that statistic from California where the majority of children areborn to women who don't bother getting married, or from the rest of theUS where the percentage of unmarried births is still less than half?We await your reply.Bob
National stat from the census bureau. The 1996 figures were 68% so
I took it down to 60% but I suspect it is higher.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article <3FBAC05B.1020502@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
dragonlady wrote:
Find a post where I said anything hateful towards men. Since I don't hate men, you will be hard pressed to find one. meh Okay, here's the first one I tried. dragonlady wrote: All I said was that even if we were creating a matriarchal family system, it would not be the first to have ever existed -- a direct response to the other poster's statement that we were creating the first ever matriarchal system on the planet. a) I do NOT agree that we are creating a matriarchal system b) REAL feminism IS about equality, for men and for women c) even if it were different and we WERE trying to create a matriarchal system (which we are not) it would not be the first to have ever existed: there HAVE been matriarchies meh

And this is hostile or hateful to men how?

Honestly, Bob, I think you are reading things into what I actually said
that are just not there. Is it just because I'm a woman? Or is it
because I'm a woman who has disagreed with some of the things you've
said?

I support equalityfor women and for men. Some women are jerks, some men
are jerks, and MY experience is that they come in about equal numbers --
but I find most people to be rather likeable. I haven't commented upon
divorce or child custody -- I've seen some great, healthy divorces where
both parents are fully involved in their kids lives and continue to
treat their ex's with respect, and some where one parent or the other
(or both!) ought to be flogged for what they do to their kids and their
ex's. I've seen court cases that leave me, at best, puzzled -- I can't
imagine WHAT the judge was thinking, and I have not expressed any
opinion one way or the other about the individuals who have posted here,
nor do I intend to.

How on earth can you call this hostile or hateful to men?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On 19 Nov 2003 01:21:30 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 18 Nov 2003 16:42:44 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:> How can there be a falling out without contribution by both parties?\Very, very easily. All it takes, especially in a " no-fault divorce "environment, is for *one person* ( Usually the woman: 70+% of the time,according to Sanford Braver, and 91% of the time, according to ShereHite ) to decide " I want outa here ".The reasons for that desire can be any one of literally millions.Have you never arrived at a wish to do something all on your own ? But that *I want out of here* means that the two people have not been communicating and not been really getting along at all.Which does NOT prove that the problem lies with *both spouses*. If it comes as a surprise to you that the wife wants out, then you have obviously not been listening to her to begin with.Lets have a precis of that:" Everything that the wife doesn't like, is the *man's fault*. "Got it. Now, we can see *why* so many marriages fail...
Where did I say that?

And why do you persist in it when I have said that I believe
both people are at fault here in almost any breakup.
The same is true of the wife for whom it comes as a total surprise.Notwithstanding that the proportions of those two situations areabout an order of magnitude apart...
Really? Why is that?

Because the man is more important than the woman in your opinion?
There is something wrong because neither of you *saw* the other person's reality at all.Free Clue: Not everyone lives in a " relality ".
I do have contact with people who are divorced. Still *most* of
my friends are still married to their first partners. And this is
also true of *many* though not all of the parents of my students
(though my students are still young and the parents might
still end up divorced, I can't say).
You, for instance...
Sorry, but I do live in reality. It's just that in mine, I have been
married to the same man (my first and only love and lover)
for almost 40 years now...
" Misogynist: A man who is winning an argument with a Feminist. "Andre


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 19 Nov 2003 01:13:46 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
The two situations are NOT equal, in the harms that can be droppedon the *non-cheating* spouse...

So bringing home stds doesn't count?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

toto wrote: On 19 Nov 2003 01:13:46 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:The two situations are NOT equal, in the harms that can be droppedon the *non-cheating* spouse... So bringing home stds doesn't count? Dorothy


Not in comparison to bringing home a bastard.

And women get STD's as often as men -- your misandry is noted.

Bob

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:13:27 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
About 70% of divorces are initiated by the female. Many of whom blamethe nearest available man. Every femroid knows that women are neverresponsible for anything.

And apparently you believe men are not responsible for anything.

I believe *both* are responsible for their actions. It is too bad
that you don't want to take responsibility for your own actions
instead of badmouthing women.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<bpc2of$1n1dos$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>...
I do not see how a man could be head of the family if his wife did not agree. It is her acceptance of his leadership that makes him the head. Jayne

I agree with almost all that you write Jayne, except for your last
comment.


It is NOT her acceptance of his leadership that makes him the head.
The husband is the head just as Christ is head of the church. Thus it
is not a wife who decides if the husband is the head, it is God who
ordains him as such.

The husband cannot be the head of the family effectively if the wife
is wicked and does not love him or show respect, or if the husband is
lazy or weak and does not take on leadership roles.

Feminism is twisting the word of God, allowing women as pastors and
priests, is telling women they can expose their flesh to men even in
church, places mothers love and female love as more important than
male or fathers and saying that it is women who give men authority
over them. Feminism may have changed the world and its views, but the
truth of Gods word is still there.

Men are not made head of the family because the wife accepts it, he is
the head of the family until her sin or his sin corrupts Gods command.

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 19 Nov 2003 01:21:30 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 18 Nov 2003 16:42:44 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:>> How can there be a falling out without contribution by both parties?\>>Very, very easily. All it takes, especially in a " no-fault divorce ">environment, is for *one person* ( Usually the woman: 70+% of the time,>according to Sanford Braver, and 91% of the time, according to Shere>Hite ) to decide " I want outa here ".>>The reasons for that desire can be any one of literally millions.>>Have you never arrived at a wish to do something all on your own ? But that *I want out of here* means that the two people have not been communicating and not been really getting along at all.Which does NOT prove that the problem lies with *both spouses*. If it comes as a surprise to you that the wife wants out, then you have obviously not been listening to her to begin with.Lets have a precis of that:" Everything that the wife doesn't like, is the *man's fault*. "Got it. Now, we can see *why* so many marriages fail... Where did I say that?

When you claimed that all such marital breakdowns *must* be mutual
failures. That was untrue, and, in the context of 70%-91% rates
of female initiation of the endings of marriages and relationships,
to attempt to equate men's and women's dissimilar actions as
if they were similar, is to try to heap the responsibility for
*what women choose to start* onto... men.

IOW, ignorance *and* misandry. What an... efficient combination...
And why do you persist in it when I have said that I believe both people are at fault here in almost any breakup.

Ibid.
The same is true of the wife for whom it comes as a total surprise.Notwithstanding that the proportions of those two situations areabout an order of magnitude apart... Really? Why is that?

Because, from 70% to 91% of the time, its the WOMAN who ends the
relationship/marriage.

Ask them why...
Because the man is more important than the woman in your opinion?

No, because the man *isn't* the one usually ending the relationship...
There is something wrong because neither of you *saw* the other person's reality at all.Free Clue: Not everyone lives in a " reality ". I do have contact with people who are divorced.

" The plural of "anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

You just *failed basic science*. Get your high school to issue
you a tax refund, as they took your parents minies under clearly
false pretenses...
Still *most* of my friends are still married to their first partners. And this is also true of *many* though not all of the parents of my students (though my students are still young and the parents might still end up divorced, I can't say).

Ibid " anecdote "... <yawn>
You, for instance... Sorry, but I do live in reality. It's just that in mine, I have been married to the same man (my first and only love and lover) for almost 40 years now...

Which beyond your narcissism, speaks NOTHING about the other
299,999,998 people in North America...

Free Clue, chykkie: It *isn't* all about *you*...
" Misogynist: A man who is winning an argument with a Feminist. "

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 19 Nov 2003 01:13:46 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:The two situations are NOT equal, in the harms that can be droppedon the *non-cheating* spouse... So bringing home stds doesn't count?

If you are trying to say that this ONLY occurs when a man is cheating,
then... your are the most *ignorant* person I have yet run across on
Usenet, and thats saying something...

If you have any DATA that suggests that men do this more than do
women, never mind that man do ALL of this sort of thing, much
like *false paternities cannot be created by the husband*, then
your prejudice has clearly taken over what few neurons you have
left...

But, thank you for once again, showing that Feminists will
run to any lengths of LIES, in order that women not be held
responsible for what *they choose to do*...

" Feminist Mantra: Always blame the nearest man... "

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <bpeod8$gfh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
dragonlady (mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net) writes: In article <3FBAC05B.1020502@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: dragonlady wrote: > Find a post where I said anything hateful towards men. Since I don't > hate men, you will be hard pressed to find one. > meh Okay, here's the first one I tried. dragonlady wrote: > > All I said was that even if we were creating a matriarchal family > system, it would not be the first to have ever existed -- a direct > response to the other poster's statement that we were creating the > first ever matriarchal system on the planet. > > a) I do NOT agree that we are creating a matriarchal system > b) REAL feminism IS about equality, for men and for women > c) even if it were different and we WERE trying to create a matriarchal > system (which we are not) it would not be the first to have ever > existed: there HAVE been matriarchies > > meh And this is hostile or hateful to men how? I'll give you a ton of examples at the end of this post... Honestly, Bob, I think you are reading things into what I actually said that are just not there. Is it just because I'm a woman? Or is it because I'm a woman who has disagreed with some of the things you've said? I support equalityfor women and for men. Really ? So, you've protested rates of mother custody of kids being at least 84% ( NOW ), you've protested lowered performance standards for women in fields such as the military, fire and police forces, etc. ? You've protested women getting child support awards that are back door alimony ? You protested when Gov. Grey Davis ( Good that that bastard is gone ) *vetoed* a bill in CA that would have allowed *men who had DNA proof that they weren't the bio fathers of kids they were paying CS for, to stop paying CS* ? I see, you didn't do a damned thing, to first recognise all the areas where Feminism demands no responsibility for women, and no rights for men...

How do you know what I have and have not gotten involved in supporting
and protesting? You assume you know what I have and have not done
based on no information whatsoever, other than that I am a woman and say
I support equality.

Some of those things I've protested, some I have not. I don't agree
with you 100% -- that does not make me a man hater, it means I think you
are sometimes wrong. Some women are jerks, some men are jerks, and MY experience is that they come in about equal numbers -- " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "...

Exactly why I said "in MY experience" -- it isn't evidence or
statistical or anything else, only speaking from my own experience. I
can do that, can't I? but I find most people to be rather likeable. I haven't commented upon divorce or child custody -- I've seen some great, healthy divorces where both parents are fully involved in their kids lives and continue to treat their ex's with respect, and some where one parent or the other (or both!) ought to be flogged for what they do to their kids and their ex's. I've seen court cases that leave me, at best, puzzled -- I can't imagine WHAT the judge was thinking, and I have not expressed any opinion one way or the other about the individuals who have posted here, nor do I intend to. How on earth can you call this hostile or hateful to men? You can have equality of opportunity or equality of *result*. The demand by women and women's groups for the latter IS anti men hatred. But, let some Festering Femmeroids say it in their own words...

And you assume I agree with everything you've cited (again, I might add
-- you already put all this stuff on this thread once)? Why? Based on
what evidence?

Some of the women you quote are, in my opinion, and in the opinion of
many other women of my acquaintance, idiots. So what? They don't
represent me, or all women and men who believe in equality (or, in some
cases, even most of them.) Many of them have been ripped to shreds by
others who work for equality.

The fact that you can quote some women who say idiotic things means
exactly nothing with regard to ME.


---- Now, chew on all *that*, and re-examine your innate womanfirsterisms...

Why do you refer to ME that way? What have I said that indicates that I
believe any of the things you cited (and no, I didn't read it in detail;
there may have been some statements with which I agree -- but I know
there were plenty with which I do NOT agree.)

Are you even remotely interested in who I am, and in what I believe or
think about anything, or are you just so invested in being angry that
you only want to yell at me for things I haven't even done or said? Do
you treat ALL women like this, assuming you know what we think based on
nothing more than your own prejudice?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

toto wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:13:27 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:About 70% of divorces are initiated by the female. Many of whom blamethe nearest available man. Every femroid knows that women are neverresponsible for anything. And apparently you believe men are not responsible for anything. I believe *both* are responsible for their actions. It is too bad that you don't want to take responsibility for your own actions instead of badmouthing women. Dorothy


Too bad you can't read. Bob said that about 70% of divorces are
initiated by the female. The ones refusing responsibility are the women
who cause the MAJORITY of divorce. They blame the nearest available man.

Bob

Andre Lieven wrote: toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes:On 19 Nov 2003 01:21:30 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)wrote:toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes:>On 18 Nov 2003 16:42:44 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)>wrote:>>>>>How can there be a falling out without contribution by both parties?\>>>>Very, very easily. All it takes, especially in a " no-fault divorce ">>environment, is for *one person* ( Usually the woman: 70+% of the time,>>according to Sanford Braver, and 91% of the time, according to Shere>>Hite ) to decide " I want outa here ".>>>>The reasons for that desire can be any one of literally millions.>>>>Have you never arrived at a wish to do something all on your own ?>>But that *I want out of here* means that the two people have not>been communicating and not been really getting along at all.Which does NOT prove that the problem lies with *both spouses*.>If it comes as a surprise to you that the wife wants out, then you>have obviously not been listening to her to begin with.Lets have a precis of that:" Everything that the wife doesn't like, is the *man's fault*. "Got it. Now, we can see *why* so many marriages fail...Where did I say that? When you claimed that all such marital breakdowns *must* be mutual failures. That was untrue, and, in the context of 70%-91% rates of female initiation of the endings of marriages and relationships, to attempt to equate men's and women's dissimilar actions as if they were similar, is to try to heap the responsibility for *what women choose to start* onto... men. IOW, ignorance *and* misandry. What an... efficient combination...And why do you persist in it when I have said that I believeboth people are at fault here in almost any breakup. Ibid.>The same is true of the wife for whom it comes as a total surprise.Notwithstanding that the proportions of those two situations areabout an order of magnitude apart...Really? Why is that? Because, from 70% to 91% of the time, its the WOMAN who ends the relationship/marriage. Ask them why...

Or more easily read "New Woman," "Ms." or "O" They've been running
articles adovcating feminist separation for years.

Because the man is more important than the woman in your opinion? No, because the man *isn't* the one usually ending the relationship...>There is something>wrong because neither of you *saw* the other person's reality at all.Free Clue: Not everyone lives in a " reality ".I do have contact with people who are divorced. " The plural of "anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " You just *failed basic science*. Get your high school to issue you a tax refund, as they took your parents minies under clearly false pretenses...


But she's a woman. She has "a woman's way of knowing." LOL.

You're going to confuse her with details.

Bob
Still *most* ofmy friends are still married to their first partners. And this isalso true of *many* though not all of the parents of my students(though my students are still young and the parents mightstill end up divorced, I can't say). Ibid " anecdote "... <yawn>You, for instance...Sorry, but I do live in reality. It's just that in mine, I have beenmarried to the same man (my first and only love and lover)for almost 40 years now... Which beyond your narcissism, speaks NOTHING about the other 299,999,998 people in North America... Free Clue, chykkie: It *isn't* all about *you*...
" Misogynist: A man who is winning an argument with a Feminist. " Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <bpegiq$rl3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 18 Nov 2003 16:42:44 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:> How can there be a falling out without contribution by both parties?\Very, very easily. All it takes, especially in a " no-fault divorce "environment, is for *one person* ( Usually the woman: 70+% of the time,according to Sanford Braver, and 91% of the time, according to ShereHite ) to decide " I want outa here ".The reasons for that desire can be any one of literally millions.Have you never arrived at a wish to do something all on your own ? But that *I want out of here* means that the two people have not been communicating and not been really getting along at all. Which does NOT prove that the problem lies with *both spouses*. If it comes as a surprise to you that the wife wants out, then you have obviously not been listening to her to begin with. Lets have a precis of that: " Everything that the wife doesn't like, is the *man's fault*. " Got it. Now, we can see *why* so many marriages fail... The same is true of the wife for whom it comes as a total surprise. Notwithstanding that the proportions of those two situations are about an order of magnitude apart... There is something wrong because neither of you *saw* the other person's reality at all. Free Clue: Not everyone lives in a " relality ".\


LMAO! Most of us even have to think a bit to figure out
what you meant by 'relality', much less try living in one! You, for instance... " Misogynist: A man who is winning an argument with a Feminist. "
Mark Borgerson

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:15:15 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Too bad you can't read. Bob said that about 70% of divorces areinitiated by the female. The ones refusing responsibility are the womenwho cause the MAJORITY of divorce. They blame the nearest available man.

Initiating the divorce isn't the *cause* of the divorce anymore than
initiating driving down the block is the *cause* of having an
accident.

The causes of divorce are a breakdown in the relationship that cannot
be laid solely on one party.

Btw, when a spouse is cheating, the relationship has already broken
down. The cheating may be the proximate cause of the divorce, but
the cheating is a symptom of the failure, it's not the disease itself.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 03:55:24 GMT, dragonlady
<mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:
In article <bpeod8$gfh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: dragonlady (mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net) writes: In article <3FBAC05B.1020502@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:> dragonlady wrote:> > Find a post where I said anything hateful towards men. Since I don't> > hate men, you will be hard pressed to find one.> > meh>> Okay, here's the first one I tried.>> dragonlady wrote:> >> > All I said was that even if we were creating a matriarchal family> > system, it would not be the first to have ever existed -- a direct> > response to the other poster's statement that we were creating the> > first ever matriarchal system on the planet.> >> > a) I do NOT agree that we are creating a matriarchal system> > b) REAL feminism IS about equality, for men and for women> > c) even if it were different and we WERE trying to create a matriarchal> > system (which we are not) it would not be the first to have ever> > existed: there HAVE been matriarchies> >> > meh And this is hostile or hateful to men how? I'll give you a ton of examples at the end of this post... Honestly, Bob, I think you are reading things into what I actually said that are just not there. Is it just because I'm a woman? Or is it because I'm a woman who has disagreed with some of the things you've said? I support equalityfor women and for men. Really ? So, you've protested rates of mother custody of kids being at least 84% ( NOW ), you've protested lowered performance standards for women in fields such as the military, fire and police forces, etc. ? You've protested women getting child support awards that are back door alimony ? You protested when Gov. Grey Davis ( Good that that bastard is gone ) *vetoed* a bill in CA that would have allowed *men who had DNA proof that they weren't the bio fathers of kids they were paying CS for, to stop paying CS* ? I see, you didn't do a damned thing, to first recognise all the areas where Feminism demands no responsibility for women, and no rights for men...How do you know what I have and have not gotten involved in supportingand protesting? You assume you know what I have and have not donebased on no information whatsoever, other than that I am a woman and sayI support equality.Some of those things I've protested, some I have not. I don't agreewith you 100% -- that does not make me a man hater, it means I think youare sometimes wrong. Some women are jerks, some men are jerks, and MY experience is that they come in about equal numbers -- " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "...Exactly why I said "in MY experience" -- it isn't evidence orstatistical or anything else, only speaking from my own experience. Ican do that, can't I? but I find most people to be rather likeable. I haven't commented upon divorce or child custody -- I've seen some great, healthy divorces where both parents are fully involved in their kids lives and continue to treat their ex's with respect, and some where one parent or the other (or both!) ought to be flogged for what they do to their kids and their ex's. I've seen court cases that leave me, at best, puzzled -- I can't imagine WHAT the judge was thinking, and I have not expressed any opinion one way or the other about the individuals who have posted here, nor do I intend to. How on earth can you call this hostile or hateful to men? You can have equality of opportunity or equality of *result*. The demand by women and women's groups for the latter IS anti men hatred. But, let some Festering Femmeroids say it in their own words...And you assume I agree with everything you've cited (again, I might add-- you already put all this stuff on this thread once)? Why? Based onwhat evidence?Some of the women you quote are, in my opinion, and in the opinion ofmany other women of my acquaintance, idiots. So what? They don'trepresent me, or all women and men who believe in equality (or, in somecases, even most of them.) Many of them have been ripped to shreds byothers who work for equality.The fact that you can quote some women who say idiotic things meansexactly nothing with regard to ME. ---- Now, chew on all *that*, and re-examine your innate womanfirsterisms...Why do you refer to ME that way? What have I said that indicates that Ibelieve any of the things you cited (and no, I didn't read it in detail;there may have been some statements with which I agree -- but I knowthere were plenty with which I do NOT agree.)Are you even remotely interested in who I am, and in what I believe orthink about anything, or are you just so invested in being angry thatyou only want to yell at me for things I haven't even done or said? Doyou treat ALL women like this, assuming you know what we think based onnothing more than your own prejudice?
You are a women...therefore Andre already knows what you think and
feel! Especially if you *don't* agree with *everything* the says.


"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure
and never simple." -- Oscar Wilde

dragonlady (mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net) writes: In article <bpeod8$gfh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: dragonlady (mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net) writes: In article <3FBAC05B.1020502@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:> dragonlady wrote:> > Find a post where I said anything hateful towards men. Since I> > don't hate men, you will be hard pressed to find one.> > meh>> Okay, here's the first one I tried.>> dragonlady wrote:> >> > All I said was that even if we were creating a matriarchal family> > system, it would not be the first to have ever existed -- a direct> > response to the other poster's statement that we were creating the> > first ever matriarchal system on the planet.> >> > a) I do NOT agree that we are creating a matriarchal system> > b) REAL feminism IS about equality, for men and for women> > c) even if it were different and we WERE trying to create a> > matriarchal system (which we are not) it would not be the first> > to have ever existed: there HAVE been matriarchies> >> > meh And this is hostile or hateful to men how? I'll give you a ton of examples at the end of this post... Honestly, Bob, I think you are reading things into what I actually said that are just not there. Is it just because I'm a woman? Or is it because I'm a woman who has disagreed with some of the things you've said? I support equalityfor women and for men. Really ? So, you've protested rates of mother custody of kids being at least 84% ( NOW ), you've protested lowered performance standards for women in fields such as the military, fire and police forces, etc. ? You've protested women getting child support awards that are back door alimony ? You protested when Gov. Grey Davis ( Good that that bastard is gone ) *vetoed* a bill in CA that would have allowed *men who had DNA proof that they weren't the bio fathers of kids they were paying CS for, to stop paying CS* ? I see, you didn't do a damned thing, to first recognise all the areas where Feminism demands no responsibility for women, and no rights for men... How do you know what I have and have not gotten involved in supporting and protesting?

Call it a judicious use of " house odds ".
You assume you know what I have and have not done based on no information whatsoever, other than that I am a woman and say I support equality.

LOL. You just contradicted yourself, there, little lady. Try again.

Your *posted words* were what led me to my conclusion.

It appears... I was quite right. <laughs>
Some of those things I've protested, some I have not. I don't agree with you 100% -- that does not make me a man hater, it means I think you are sometimes wrong.

LOL. Yet, you CAN'T show how.

Got it.
Some women are jerks, some men are jerks, and MY experience is that they come in about equal numbers -- " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "... Exactly why I said "in MY experience" --

Since the TOPIC *wansn't* about *you*, then this was merly narcissistic
irrelevence on your part. More proof that... I was right about you.

" House odds "...
it isn't evidence or statistical or anything else, only speaking from my own experience. I can do that, can't I?

Sure. And, others can bring attention to the narcissism that it is.

Or, is free speech only for *you* ?

<laughs>
but I find most people to be rather likeable. I haven't commented upon divorce or child custody -- I've seen some great, healthy divorces where both parents are fully involved in their kids lives and continue to treat their ex's with respect, and some where one parent or the other (or both!) ought to be flogged for what they do to their kids and their ex's. I've seen court cases that leave me, at best, puzzled -- I can't imagine WHAT the judge was thinking, and I have not expressed any opinion one way or the other about the individuals who have posted here, nor do I intend to. How on earth can you call this hostile or hateful to men? You can have equality of opportunity or equality of *result*. The demand by women and women's groups for the latter IS anti men hatred. But, let some Festering Femmeroids say it in their own words... And you assume I agree with everything you've cited (again, I might add -- you already put all this stuff on this thread once)? Why? Based on what evidence?

" House odds ". Plus, your *false claims* that men and women destroy
marriages at comparable rates, when... thats proven not true.

IOW, you were either *ignorant* or a *liar*. Which was it ?
Some of the women you quote are, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other women of my acquaintance, idiots. So what?

The point is that many women believe what those women said. And,
if thats women saying insane thinigs, then it's your job, as another
woman, to publically speak out against them, rather than try to
hand wave them away. As... you just did.

Busted...
They don't represent me, or all women and men who believe in equality (or, in some cases, even most of them.) Many of them have been ripped to shreds by others who work for equality.

" You can't criticise Feminism because no statement you make is true
of _all_ Feminists.

This trick tries to block discussion by making it impossible to
express your thought. The writer simply specifies that by
'Feminism', he means mainstream Feminism, misandry. "

From " Feminist myths and tricks frequently used to disrupt
discussion. "

We could do a dance on the topic of women not wanting equality,
when it comes to anything outside of entitlements, but thats
another discussion.

Where are the 50% of women fire fighters, etc ? Oh, thats right,
they'd rather be doing somehting... less difficult, while being
paid as if they were doing something as difficult...

Private Lunch being the latest case in point...
The fact that you can quote some women who say idiotic things means exactly nothing with regard to ME.

" House odds ".
---- Now, chew on all *that*, and re-examine your innate womanfirsterisms... Why do you refer to ME that way? What have I said that indicates that I believe any of the things you cited (and no, I didn't read it in detail; there may have been some statements with which I agree -- but I know there were plenty with which I do NOT agree.)

Your false attempt to equate men leaving marriages with women, when
women leave, from between 70% to 91% of the time.

Only a Feminist could try to make 70 and 30, or 91 and 9, seem
the same...
Are you even remotely interested in who I am, and in what I believe or think about anything, or are you just so invested in being angry that you only want to yell at me for things I haven't even done or said?

LOL ! Deny to yourself all you want to, widdle woman, but I came
at you for the falseness of *what you posted*.

" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose*. " Danny DeVito,
" Other People's Money ".
Do you treat ALL women like this, assuming you know what we think based on nothing more than your own prejudice?

Why, do you claim to BE " all women " ?

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: I am surprised that some of them were not interested in discussing how to best be a father even if they are divorced. That is what they are discussing.

No, you are only using that as an avenue to blame the
mother/court system/current boyfriend for your woes.
There isn't any "discussion" going on. You are just giving
up on bettering things yourself, instead choosing to troll
for sympathy.



P. Tierney

"Ian" <drawnai@hotmail.com> wrote: Well, that explains it then. You mislearned that bit of wisdom. The admonition is to treat others as you would be treated no matter how they treat you. That doesn't work. So I don't do follow that mad ideology.

So how is wallowing in self-pity a good ideology?


P. Tierney

toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message news:<5cvirvkp1ng7rjcloa2m1acqer6257n88r@4ax.com>... On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:22:45 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Feminist definition: "Best interest of the child" --> 1. Whatevercustody decision mom wants. 2. Whatever gets mom the highest paymentsfor "child support." 3. That which hurts dad the most. Father's Rights definition: 1. Whatever custody decision the dad wants. 2. Whatever decision allows him to pay the least amount of money. 3. That which hurts the mom most.

Court definition.
1. Whatever the feminists want.
2. Whatever decision the feminists decree the man to pay the most.
3. Whichever destroys marriage the quickest.

"RCB" <warspite88@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:611e5148.0311181904.2a6ae884@posting.google.c om... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:<bpc2of$1n1dos$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... I do not see how a man could be head of the family if his wife did not agree. It is her acceptance of his leadership that makes him the head. Jayne I agree with almost all that you write Jayne, except for your last comment. It is NOT her acceptance of his leadership that makes him the head. The husband is the head just as Christ is head of the church. Thus it is not a wife who decides if the husband is the head, it is God who ordains him as such.
[]

I have a sense of conviction about what God wants from me in my marriage,
but do not feel any calling to tell other people what they should do in
theirs. I've seen that different Christians have different understandings
about this and I don't want to argue about it with them. In my family, the
husband is the head and he is the spiritual leader.

Jayne

toto wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:15:15 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Too bad you can't read. Bob said that about 70% of divorces areinitiated by the female. The ones refusing responsibility are the womenwho cause the MAJORITY of divorce. They blame the nearest available man. Initiating the divorce isn't the *cause* of the divorce anymore than initiating driving down the block is the *cause* of having an accident. The causes of divorce are a breakdown in the relationship that cannot be laid solely on one party. Btw, when a spouse is cheating, the relationship has already broken down. The cheating may be the proximate cause of the divorce, but the cheating is a symptom of the failure, it's not the disease itself. Dorothy


Your misandrist stereotypes are typical of the kind of anti-men hate
that femroids like to toss around while blaming the nearest available
man. Hate is not family friendly and serves evil.


Bob

"Ian" <drawnai@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d33ce629.0311190110.743371c0@posting.google.c om... toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:<5cvirvkp1ng7rjcloa2m1acqer6257n88r@4ax.com>... On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:22:45 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Feminist definition: "Best interest of the child" --> 1. Whatevercustody decision mom wants. 2. Whatever gets mom the highest paymentsfor "child support." 3. That which hurts dad the most. Father's Rights definition: 1. Whatever custody decision the dad wants. 2. Whatever decision allows him to pay the least amount of money. 3. That which hurts the mom most. Court definition. 1. Whatever the feminists want. 2. Whatever decision the feminists decree the man to pay the most. 3. Whichever destroys marriage the quickest.

Oh, so NOW you're the court, issuing opinions for the court. What a pompous
***!


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron Canfield wrote: "Ian" <drawnai@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d33ce629.0311190110.743371c0@posting.google.c om...toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message news:<5cvirvkp1ng7rjcloa2m1acqer6257n88r@4ax.com>...On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:22:45 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>Feminist definition: "Best interest of the child" --> 1. Whatever>custody decision mom wants. 2. Whatever gets mom the highest payments>for "child support." 3. That which hurts dad the most.Father's Rights definition: 1. Whatever custody decision the dadwants. 2. Whatever decision allows him to pay the least amountof money. 3. That which hurts the mom most.Court definition.1. Whatever the feminists want.2. Whatever decision the feminists decree the man to pay the most.3. Whichever destroys marriage the quickest. Oh, so NOW you're the court, issuing opinions for the court. What a pompous ***!

Try "Observer of the court."

Bob

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:02:49 +1300, "CJS" <virustrap@worksofcraft.com>
wrote:
You are not even willing to accept a hypothetical case as the basis of discussion and are stuck on the idea that a person is always in some way to blame for his/her failed relationship.

Absent actions of clear malice (abuse of one partner by the other,
repeated infidelity, molesting the couple's children), it's unlikely
that both parties did not in some fashion contribute to the breakdown of
their marriage.

That's not in any way to suggest that the contributions were equal in
degree, but having a marriage fall apart after a relatively long
duration would generally have too complicated of roots to purely be one
person's fault.
Evidently a waste of time trying to discuss whether that should have any bearing on that person's right to be with his/her children.

The two have little to do with each other. Absent confirmed criminal
behavior, both parents should be presumed fit and should be granted
equivalent or near-equivalent access to the kid(s).

And I mean actual criminal behavior; people who make false accusations
to cut one parent out of their kids' lives are total scum and should rot
in jail.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:59:07 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
The average young man now expects that if he gets married his wife will eventually file for divorce, take the kids, his home, his car, his bank account, and put him into indentured servitude (a form of slavery) called "child support" for the next 20 years.

I hope the average young man gets snipped, then, to protect himself.
One recent survey posted on soc.men recently showed that 98% of young women surveyed wanted to be SAHMs with a husband and kids.

Could you offer a message-ID to that? I'd be interested in looking at
how the questions were asked and who the study audience included.
That's a surprisingly (and appallingly, to me at least) high figure.
The expectations of those young women are running into young men who have grown up in a feminized society where women wrote all the rules, and many young men won't have any part of them. We have another long running topic called "marriage strike" about how many young men are "on strike" against marriage because they can't expect a positive outcome.

I think that's a shame, but I agree they shouldn't marry if they have
that many doubts.
In many states there is a new demand for DNA testing before any claim of "child support." California ex-governor Davis vetoed a law which would have prohibited state sanctioned paternity fraud. I'm sure that lots of men voted for recall becasue of that one.

I agree in general that a man shouldn't have to pay to support a child
who isn't his, but if the man has been supporting that child for a long
period of time (emotionally, economically, etc.), I have a hard time
with giving an automatic out from responsibility after, say, ten years
of raising the kid.

Basically, it's not the kid's fault mom took dad for a ride.

(I come at this inhabiting the statistic of women initiating
separations, by the way. My husband and I each have joint custody with
our exes, and since my ex and I have roughly 50/50 physical custody,
only my husband currently receives child support payments.)

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:11:44 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: For most of history men have worked together for justice for all even when their own lives were not impacted by injustice. Men today need to look at the injustice happening to other men and support equal rights even if they are not yet hurt personally.

This is a fine sentiment, which would be more palatable and likely more
successful, if you didn't sound like a raving, woman-hating extremist
when espousing it.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:38:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
It's hard to believe that the attitude behind such comments is the result of anyone's divorce. It seems more likely that it would've been a cause.I don't find it hard to believe at all. I keep seeing all thesecriticisms of these men for being angry and bitter. Dopeople expect them to be happy after what they have beenthrough?

I don't think people expect them to be happy about their experiences,
but I do think that when they generalize to *all women* from their
ex-wives and when they refuse to see their own responsibility in the
breakup of their marriages, it is hard to sympathize.

The same thing is true about women who are bitter and who claim
they are not receiving child support so all dads are deadbeats. It's
not true and they are most likely in denial about what they did that
precipitated the breakup of their marriages as well.

Anger and bitterness are a phase that they need to get through
if they want to get things working for them. I don't believe staying
angry and bitter helps them much any more than it helps their
children.



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:38:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: It's hard to believe that the attitude behind such commentsis the result of anyone's divorce. It seems more likely thatit would've been a cause.I don't find it hard to believe at all. I keep seeing all thesecriticisms of these men for being angry and bitter. Dopeople expect them to be happy after what they have beenthrough? I don't think people expect them to be happy about their experiences, but I do think that when they generalize to *all women* from their ex-wives and when they refuse to see their own responsibility in the breakup of their marriages, it is hard to sympathize. The same thing is true about women who are bitter and who claim they are not receiving child support so all dads are deadbeats. It's not true and they are most likely in denial about what they did that precipitated the breakup of their marriages as well.

Wrong. Those who accept the concept of "child support" as proper and
say that some men are "deadbeat dads" for failing to live up to their
enslavement are the real underlying bigots and unfeeling shrews.
So-called "child support" is a radical feminist social experiment that
has totally failed millions of families and children. Hundreds of
thousands of men are sent to debtor's prisons while millions of children
suffer. No, Dorothy, it is women like you who call men "deadbeat dads"
are the problem.

As for "all women," there are very few women who do not hate men and
support anti-men hate programs and prejudices. For a good book on the
topic of now almost universal hate of men by American women see "My
Enemy, My Love: Man-Hating and Ambivalence in Women's Lives" by Judith
Levine. Ms. Levine, a journalist, reports on how virtually all modern
women hate men on some level despite also loving men.

Anger and bitterness are a phase that they need to get through if they want to get things working for them. I don't believe staying angry and bitter helps them much any more than it helps their children. Dorothy


What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the
government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist
social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another
million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who
are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and
"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her
hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men
who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.

Bob

In article <3FBBFA43.9010301@hotmail.com>, Bob says...
What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in thegovernment now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feministsocial experiment called "child support" is eradicated before anothermillion children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men whoare angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for herhate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack menwho support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.Bob

Yeah....yeah.....yeah.

So, what I haven't seen from you, or anyone else in this bunch who've suddenly
appeared in misc.kids, is what positive model you do have for marriage and
divorce. What would you like to see?

Banty

Kathy Cole wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:11:44 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:For most of history men have worked together for justice for alleven when their own lives were not impacted by injustice. Mentoday need to look at the injustice happening to other men andsupport equal rights even if they are not yet hurt personally. This is a fine sentiment, which would be more palatable and likely more successful, if you didn't sound like a raving, woman-hating extremist when espousing it.


Your objection would sound a lot more palatable if you didn't keep
supporting misandrist bigotry in almost every post. Hate is not a good
way to make friends.

It is so typical of femroids to attack the speaker who defends MEN and
supports MEN against the onslaught of feminist destruction. Sorry
Toots, that tactic doesn't work any more.

Your definition of "woman-hating extremist" amounts to opposing feminism
and your feminist beliefs. Too bad Toots. Your femroid fantasy days
are numbered. Deal with it.

Feminist definition: "Misogynist" --> n. someone winning a debate with
a feminist. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.


Bob

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:18:27 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack menwho support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slaver

So it isn't *both* parent's responsibility to support their children
both physically with food, clothing and shelter and emotionally
with love and support?

When a marriage breaks apart, it seems to me that it would be
a lot better for the children if both parents put aside the animosity
they may have for each other and worked out an equitable joint
custody arrangement that allowed the children to have a good
life both physically and emotionally.

It isn't an *either/or* situation. But you are a parent for life,
even if you are not married anymore. That does entail certain
responsibilities for supporting the children you are father or
mother to.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:48:22 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com>
wrote:
In many states there is a new demand for DNA testing before any claim of "child support." California ex-governor Davis vetoed a law which would have prohibited state sanctioned paternity fraud. I'm sure that lots of men voted for recall becasue of that one.I agree in general that a man shouldn't have to pay to support a childwho isn't his, but if the man has been supporting that child for a longperiod of time (emotionally, economically, etc.), I have a hard timewith giving an automatic out from responsibility after, say, ten yearsof raising the kid.
And I would agree with this also.
Basically, it's not the kid's fault mom took dad for a ride.
Again I agree.

And a question for the men who are fighting for this?
If you were a good dad, involved in the child's life and
if you loved him, does finding out that he is not your
biological offspring change that love?

Do you still want to see him?

And if so, wouldn't it be fair to support him? Not to support
your ex-wife, but to support the child you claim to love.

I know women who have abandoned biological offspring.
I cannot imagine how they can do this at all. And by the
same token, I cannot imagine a man who plays with and
cares for a child would want to abandon that child simply
because of a dna test although that would be fair legally.
(I come at this inhabiting the statistic of women initiatingseparations, by the way. My husband and I each have joint custody withour exes, and since my ex and I have roughly 50/50 physical custody,only my husband currently receives child support payments.)


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Banty wrote: In article <3FBBFA43.9010301@hotmail.com>, Bob says...What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in thegovernment now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feministsocial experiment called "child support" is eradicated before anothermillion children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men whoare angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for herhate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack menwho support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.Bob Yeah....yeah.....yeah. So, what I haven't seen from you, or anyone else in this bunch who've suddenly appeared in misc.kids, is what positive model you do have for marriage and divorce. What would you like to see? Banty

Someone started cross posting between misc.kids and soc.men. The topics
are not identical but there is some overlap.

When men and women work together to support each other and raise
children together things work out pretty well. Jayne Kulikauskas has
been providing us with a well thought out view of ideal marriages.
Perhaps you might read her posts.

Bob likes to use mixed doubles tennis as a metaphor for making a
marriage work. To succeed in doubles tennis you have to find the
strongest partner you can and then help them to become stronger. You
have to cover for her weaknesses and expect her to cover for yours. If
you both work as hard as you can you both win. If either of you fights
with the other, or waits for the other person to cover your side of the
court, you both lose. Marriage works much the same way.

Bob

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: IOW: Kathy supports the radical feminist social experiment called "child support" that pays women to break up families and puts men into slavery.

Yes, it's much better for women to be enslaved to marriages that
are empty, abusive, and/or devoid of love.

If such hyperbole and self-pity is typical of soc.men, then
please keep to yourself more. Your, um, "logic" is too good
for this newsgroup.


P. Tierney

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:37:09 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com>
wrote:
Evidently a waste of time trying to discuss whether that should have any bearing on that person's right to be with his/her children.The two have little to do with each other. Absent confirmed criminalbehavior, both parents should be presumed fit and should be grantedequivalent or near-equivalent access to the kid(s).And I mean actual criminal behavior; people who make false accusationsto cut one parent out of their kids' lives are total scum and should rotin jail.

Again I agree with Kathy.

The thing is that access to the children should not have anything to
do with the reasons for the divorce barring abusive or criminal
behavior on the part of either spouse that renders that person an
unfit parent.

A person who divorces his wife is not divorcing his children.



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:18:27 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack menwho support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slaver So it isn't *both* parent's responsibility to support their children both physically with food, clothing and shelter and emotionally with love and support?

Yes, Bob has said that on numerous occasions. Bob doesn't confuse the
co-equal 100% obligation to support the children with a demand that men
pay women. The two are not the same thing at all.

When a marriage breaks apart, it seems to me that it would be a lot better for the children if both parents put aside the animosity they may have for each other and worked out an equitable joint custody arrangement that allowed the children to have a good life both physically and emotionally.

It would be much better if neither parent was filled with animosity.
Unfortunately many people need psychologically to work up a lot of anger
to get the energy to get a divorce, and can not let it go afterwards.
Many times the children are used as pawns to "get back at" the ex.

As for "joint custody arrangement," any custody arrangement violates the
child's fundamental human right to both parents. The child has a right
to full support and association with/from either parent as often as
he/she likes.

Statistically the most dangerous place for a child to live is in a
single mother headed home, especially if she has a parade of new studs.

It isn't an *either/or* situation. But you are a parent for life, even if you are not married anymore. That does entail certain responsibilities for supporting the children you are father or mother to. Dorothy

The responsibility to support the child is NOT a responsibility to pay
the ex for breaking up the family. Children are supported by putting a
plate for them at dinner, providing a bed for them to sleep in, etc.

The feminist program of forcing men to pay women is a radical feminist
social experiment that has FAILED millions of children and needs to be
eradicated before the next million children are hurt.

Bob

dragonlady wrote:
it wasn't that long ago that it was biased against women -- men were ALWAYS given custody --

A classic femroid appeal to revisionist history to justify current
discrimination agaisnt men.
and the pendulum has swung the other direction;

There is no "pendulum." That is another classic femroid hate speech
dogma. Dragonlady believes and frequently repeats most of the typical
feminist hate even while claiming to be non prejudiced. In that she is
typical of most modern women. Even while objecting to victimology
feminism they nevertheless believe and act upon most of the feminist
prejudices.

that doesn't make it right, and I'd like to see a system that is entirely fair and unbiased towards either men or women.

You could start by dropping the misandrist hate rhetoric of feminism.
It belies your claim about fair and unbiased.

I don't blame them for being angry and bitter; I probably would be too, and pray that I am never in a position of being screwed like that. The problem is in the men who have been so shafted generalizing in such a way that any woman who dares to disagree with anything they say becomes a "femeroid", and all women are assumed to be man-haters ("house odds"

You are a typical example. You can't stop posting classic misandrist
hate propaganda long enough to blame men for objecting to all women who
do so. You are so used to misandry, and have believed it for so long
that you assume anti-men hate to be "truth."

was the phrase used by one). If they would stop their angry diatribes long enough to listen to what some of us are *actually* saying, instead of what they *assume* we are saying, they might find they have female allies. meh

If YOU would stop your hate speech long enough to listen to what some of
us are *actually* saying, YOU might find you have men for allies. But
YOU so deeply believe the hate propaganda of feminism that you can't
stop posting it even long enough to deny it.

Bob

toto wrote: Again I agree with Kathy. The thing is that access to the children should not have anything to do with the reasons for the divorce barring abusive or criminal behavior on the part of either spouse that renders that person an unfit parent. A person who divorces his wife is not divorcing his children. Dorothy


Bob has said that often. The divorce court has no jurisdiction over
custody of a child who is not represented in court by adequate legal
counsel and is not part of the "four corners of the instant case."

The exceed the bounds of their own authority and violate the rights of
the child if they award custody to either parent.

Bob

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:55:11 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kathy Cole wrote: This is a fine sentiment, which would be more palatable and likely more successful, if you didn't sound like a raving, woman-hating extremist when espousing it. Your objection would sound a lot more palatable if you didn't keep supporting misandrist bigotry in almost every post. Hate is not a good way to make friends.

I don't agree with your characterization of my words as bigotry or hate,
but you are of course welcome to your own interpretation and opinion.

As I just mentioned in another followup, I am offering what I believe is
practical advice. To the extent you want systemic change, you have to
work the political system. That means talking with politicians and
others who influence policy-making, and working to gradually introduce
improvements to the laws. If you want to be successful, it's more
likely if you moderate the tone of what you advocate; if you want to be
dismissed as a fringe whacko, well, keep doing what you're doing.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:32:34 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
So it isn't *both* parent's responsibility to support their children both physically with food, clothing and shelter and emotionally with love and support?Yes, Bob has said that on numerous occasions. Bob doesn't confuse theco-equal 100% obligation to support the children with a demand that menpay women. The two are not the same thing at all.

But I agree that they are not the same, so why do you insist I think
that they are.

Child support is not the same as alimony. When you support your
child, you buy them food, clothing and shelter (and possibly other
things if you can afford them). There is nothing in what I say that
says you must support the mother and allow her to stay home unless
you *both* believe that a stay at home mother is important to you.
If you don't believe that and she does, she is out of luck because
you should not have to support her or at least this should be
temporary until she has the skills to support herself (women in
my era often did not have the skills to work, but nowadays any
woman who doesn't protect herself with skills that are marketable
is foolish).

Also, btw, I don't believe that the mother should be able to deny
visitation to a dad who wants visitation barring when he is abusive
to the children and that has to be proven, not simply *accusatory*
in the heat of the divorce.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article <3FBC0972.8000604@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Banty wrote: In article <3FBBFA43.9010301@hotmail.com>, Bob says...What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in thegovernment now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feministsocial experiment called "child support" is eradicated before anothermillion children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men whoare angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for herhate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack menwho support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.Bob Yeah....yeah.....yeah.So, what I haven't seen from you, or anyone else in this bunch who've suddenly appeared in misc.kids, is what positive model you do have for marriage and divorce. What would you like to see? BantySomeone started cross posting between misc.kids and soc.men. The topicsare not identical but there is some overlap.When men and women work together to support each other and raisechildren together things work out pretty well. Jayne Kulikauskas hasbeen providing us with a well thought out view of ideal marriages.Perhaps you might read her posts.

Of course I've read Jayne's posts.

Do you think her marriage is the only model of a good marriage?
Bob likes to use mixed doubles tennis as a metaphor for making amarriage work. To succeed in doubles tennis you have to find thestrongest partner you can and then help them to become stronger. Youhave to cover for her weaknesses and expect her to cover for yours. Ifyou both work as hard as you can you both win. If either of you fightswith the other, or waits for the other person to cover your side of thecourt, you both lose. Marriage works much the same way.

I'm afraid that's a bit too vague.

Banty

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:32:34 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
When a marriage breaks apart, it seems to me that it would be a lot better for the children if both parents put aside the animosity they may have for each other and worked out an equitable joint custody arrangement that allowed the children to have a good life both physically and emotionally.It would be much better if neither parent was filled with animosity.Unfortunately many people need psychologically to work up a lot of angerto get the energy to get a divorce, and can not let it go afterwards.Many times the children are used as pawns to "get back at" the ex.
Yes they are. By both sides.
As for "joint custody arrangement," any custody arrangement violates thechild's fundamental human right to both parents. The child has a rightto full support and association with/from either parent as often ashe/she likes.
Joint custody provides both parents with access.

As to *as often as he or she likes* that depends on the age of the
child and the ability of the parents to see what is the least
disruptive to the child's life, imo. Shuttling from one parent
to the other is often hard on the child. I do believe the child
should be given the choice of which parent s/he lives with although
this is not really feasible for children under the age of 3. Most
courts probably don't allow the child to choose until much later,
but I would allow the child to choose only with some provision
for not yoyoing back and forth if the child wanted to change
homes in midstream. Unless there is abuse, it seems logical
that the child should live with one parent for the school year
at least so as not to disrupt their education.
Statistically the most dangerous place for a child to live is in asingle mother headed home, especially if she has a parade ofnew studs.

Again, I agree that having new boyfriends tends to place the
child in danger, I think the same can be said of the man who
has a lot of new girlfriends as well.

But a single parent home needn't be dangerous for the child.
It depends on both biological parents being adult and vigilant
about who their new partners are.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article <3FBC0BA2.6070002@hotmail.com>, Bob says...toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:18:27 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack menwho support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slaver So it isn't *both* parent's responsibility to support their children both physically with food, clothing and shelter and emotionally with love and support?Yes, Bob has said that on numerous occasions. Bob doesn't confuse theco-equal 100% obligation to support the children with a demand that menpay women. The two are not the same thing at all.

How'd you get to be third person? Banty doesn't understand. Are there two
Bobs? Does Bob think there's two Bobs?

Banty

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:38:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: It's hard to believe that the attitude behind such comments is the result of anyone's divorce. It seems more likely that it would've been a cause.I don't find it hard to believe at all. I keep seeing all thesecriticisms of these men for being angry and bitter. Dopeople expect them to be happy after what they have beenthrough? I don't think people expect them to be happy about their experiences, but I do think that when they generalize to *all women*

Two points: One, " Feminist " and " woman " are NOT synomyms.

Next, after doing a lot of research on such matters, it is evident
that the majority of women do such things, as this fellow had to
endure. So, whern making generalisations, its logical to go where
the majority is.

Do you complain when Feminists say " *All* men are rapists " ?

Yeah, didn't think so...
from their ex-wives and when they refuse to see their own responsibility in the breakup of their marriages, it is hard to sympathize.

So, having the woman break up the marriage ( The way it is, from
70% to 91% of cases ) isn't, to you, as serious a cause for criticism
as men who had that bomb dropped on them being righteously pissed off.

Yep, you're a man-hater. Which IS a synonym for " Feminist "...
The same thing is true about women who are bitter and who claim they are not receiving child support so all dads are deadbeats.

Yet, the pop media says the same things. Have you contacted CNN,
ABC, the NYTimes, et al, to explain their error to them ?

Yeah, didn't think so...

More proof of your misandry, and hypocrisy...
It's not true and they are most likely in denial about what they did that precipitated the breakup of their marriages as well.

Yet, that 70-91% figure still stands...
Anger and bitterness are a phase that they need to get through if they want to get things working for them. I don't believe staying angry and bitter helps them much any more than it helps their children.

Translation: " How dare men feel things I don't like them feeling "...

Feh.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <7s3orv0ivssnl1mge7q62b7fcban2g0d3o@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole says...On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:55:11 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: Kathy Cole wrote: This is a fine sentiment, which would be more palatable and likely more successful, if you didn't sound like a raving, woman-hating extremist when espousing it. Your objection would sound a lot more palatable if you didn't keep supporting misandrist bigotry in almost every post. Hate is not a good way to make friends.I don't agree with your characterization of my words as bigotry or hate,but you are of course welcome to your own interpretation and opinion.As I just mentioned in another followup, I am offering what I believe ispractical advice. To the extent you want systemic change, you have towork the political system. That means talking with politicians andothers who influence policy-making, and working to gradually introduceimprovements to the laws. If you want to be successful, it's morelikely if you moderate the tone of what you advocate; if you want to bedismissed as a fringe whacko, well, keep doing what you're doing.


Worse than being dismissed as a fringe whackos, the level of hostility,
presumption, and denigration leads their readers and listeners to wonder what
personality or other disorder may have lead to their circumstances, and if
theirs may be the few cases that might have made lack of contact with their
children necessary.

If one is that abusive to people who have simply written disagreeing words,
folks wonder what behaviors one manifests in real life.

It's a worse credibility problem than just being dismissed as a 'fringe whacko'.

Banty

Banty

Kathy Cole (kathy@scconsult.com) writes: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:59:07 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: The average young man now expects that if he gets married his wife will eventually file for divorce, take the kids, his home, his car, his bank account, and put him into indentured servitude (a form of slavery) called "child support" for the next 20 years. I hope the average young man gets snipped, then, to protect himself.

Consider the situation of man needing *surgery* to have equal
legal rights to his life...

What would you say, were the situation reversed, and it was women
needing tubal ligations, in order to avoid enforced parental legal
obligations ?
One recent survey posted on soc.men recently showed that 98% of young women surveyed wanted to be SAHMs with a husband and kids. Could you offer a message-ID to that? I'd be interested in looking at how the questions were asked and who the study audience included.

It was basically, " Which odf these situations would you prefer ? "
That's a surprisingly (and appallingly, to me at least) high figure.

Not surprising to me, at all...
The expectations of those young women are running into young men who have grown up in a feminized society where women wrote all the rules, and many young men won't have any part of them. We have another long running topic called "marriage strike" about how many young men are "on strike" against marriage because they can't expect a positive outcome. I think that's a shame, but I agree they shouldn't marry if they have that many doubts.

Which gets us articles calling men " Peter Pans children ", in
female written pop media articles. Google up " Susan Reimer "...
In many states there is a new demand for DNA testing before any claim of "child support." California ex-governor Davis vetoed a law which would have prohibited state sanctioned paternity fraud. I'm sure that lots of men voted for recall becasue of that one. I agree in general that a man shouldn't have to pay to support a child who isn't his, but if the man has been supporting that child for a long period of time (emotionally, economically, etc.), I have a hard time with giving an automatic out from responsibility after, say, ten years of raising the kid.

So, you're saying that if the woman was a *good enough LIAR*, the
man should be liable for *having trusted her*... ?

Wow, you *really* want men to have deep and serious *cause* to
MS-trust women... Since that IS an entirely predictable effect
from what you just said.

Thanks for showing that, when you have an opportunity to criticise
a woman who's done evil, you'd rather... blame the nearest *man*...

Got it.
Basically, it's not the kid's fault mom took dad for a ride.

No. Its moms. Let HER pay for it. The child can be placed in adoption.
(I come at this inhabiting the statistic of women initiating separations, by the way. My husband and I each have joint custody with our exes, and since my ex and I have roughly 50/50 physical custody, only my husband currently receives child support payments.)

You do understand that, in both situations, your case is the
exception, and not the norm ? Thus, that your situation does not
extrapolate well into most cases.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <t44orvoqmec79ks1341eupo1s3e20g2e3v@4ax.com>, toto says...On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:32:34 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: When a marriage breaks apart, it seems to me that it would be a lot better for the children if both parents put aside the animosity they may have for each other and worked out an equitable joint custody arrangement that allowed the children to have a good life both physically and emotionally.It would be much better if neither parent was filled with animosity.Unfortunately many people need psychologically to work up a lot of angerto get the energy to get a divorce, and can not let it go afterwards.Many times the children are used as pawns to "get back at" the ex.Yes they are. By both sides.As for "joint custody arrangement," any custody arrangement violates thechild's fundamental human right to both parents. The child has a rightto full support and association with/from either parent as often ashe/she likes.Joint custody provides both parents with access.As to *as often as he or she likes* that depends on the age of thechild and the ability of the parents to see what is the leastdisruptive to the child's life, imo. Shuttling from one parentto the other is often hard on the child. I do believe the childshould be given the choice of which parent s/he lives with althoughthis is not really feasible for children under the age of 3. Mostcourts probably don't allow the child to choose until much later,but I would allow the child to choose only with some provisionfor not yoyoing back and forth if the child wanted to changehomes in midstream. Unless there is abuse, it seems logicalthat the child should live with one parent for the school yearat least so as not to disrupt their education.

To be really successful joint custody involved both parents pretty much staying
in the same neighborhood or otherwise managing for consistency in schooling.
And over a long time. Folks have to committ and settle down. And that may mean
sacrifices.

IME where most of these arrangements fail is when one or other parent moves for
job or another relationship. So then what. We've seen a few cases lately in
these newsgroups.

Banty

In article <3FBC0FB1.90801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
dragonlady wrote: it wasn't that long ago that it was biased against women -- men were ALWAYS given custody -- A classic femroid appeal to revisionist history to justify current discrimination agaisnt men.

Revisionist history? Under English common law (upon which USA law is
based) children were the property of their father. The father could
sell them, give them away -- even beat them or throw them out. The
mother had no right to stop any of that or to interfere with the
father's rights in any way. Until the mid-19th century, fathers were
the presumptive custodian of the children -- period, no matter what the
circumstances of the divorce. Even if it could be shown that the man
beat the children, neglected them, refused to educate them -- the father
was considered the proper parent to have custody. It wasn't until the
late 1800's that the courts began to (sometimes) award custody of the
children to the mother. In the grand scheme of things, I don't consider
that to have been all that long ago, so the statement that courts used
to be biased against women in these cases is just a fact -- no revision
of history necessary.

Why do YOU assume that a recognition of past discrimination against
women is "revisionist"? Are you so uneducated about history that you
honestly believe that the things I've described did NOT happen? You are
aware that women have only had the vote for less than 100 years, and
that it wasn't that long ago that it was legal (expected, even) to pay
women less $$ for the same work that a man was doing? Surely your
position is not that women were never the victims of any form of
discrimination? Or that men have only been the victims of some forms of
discrimination in recent years? (The old system discriminated against
men in other ways -- but NOT when it came to child custody.)

That women used to be discriminated against in absolutely horrid ways
does NOT justify any discrimination against men, then or now. It can't.
Two wrongs don't make a right. But refusing to acknowledge historical
reality really doesn't do anything to advance your cause!

More recently, the mother has been always presumed to be the "proper"
parent to receive custody. Neither approach is right. I am NOT
justifying the current discrimintation, nor do I intend to justify it.
It's wrong. Discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong. A
presumption that a mother, because she is a woman, is obviously the
better parent is wrong. Period. No argument. Men and women should
have equal access to their children. No parent should be denied access
to their children just because the other parent is angry, or hurt, or
vengeful.

I can't quite figure out how you read any attempt to "justify"
discrimination into anything I've really written.
and the pendulum has swung the other direction; There is no "pendulum." That is another classic femroid hate speech dogma. Dragonlady believes and frequently repeats most of the typical feminist hate even while claiming to be non prejudiced. In that she is typical of most modern women. Even while objecting to victimology feminism they nevertheless believe and act upon most of the feminist prejudices. that doesn't make it right, and I'd like to see a system that is entirely fair and unbiased towards either men or women. You could start by dropping the misandrist hate rhetoric of feminism. It belies your claim about fair and unbiased.

I haven't done any "misandrist hate rhetoric" -- though apparently by
the very fact that I am a woman you are able to read that into what I
have written.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Kathy Cole (kathy@scconsult.com) writes: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:11:44 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: For most of history men have worked together for justice for all even when their own lives were not impacted by injustice. Men today need to look at the injustice happening to other men and support equal rights even if they are not yet hurt personally. This is a fine sentiment, which would be more palatable and likely more successful, if you didn't sound like a raving, woman-hating extremist when espousing it.

Translation: " You're right, just in the wrong way. "

The fallacy of this is clear enough. You value style *over* substance.

Got it.

We can now discount your words, and they are substance free.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <bph3o1$1to$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:38:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:> It's hard to believe that the attitude behind such comments> is the result of anyone's divorce. It seems more likely that> it would've been a cause.I don't find it hard to believe at all. I keep seeing all thesecriticisms of these men for being angry and bitter. Dopeople expect them to be happy after what they have beenthrough? I don't think people expect them to be happy about their experiences, but I do think that when they generalize to *all women* Two points: One, " Feminist " and " woman " are NOT synomyms. Next, after doing a lot of research on such matters, it is evident that the majority of women do such things, as this fellow had to endure. So, whern making generalisations, its logical to go where the majority is.
Personally, I try to avoid generalisations about women or about men --
or about gays or straights or Native Americans or Italians or any other
identifyable group. What you call "generalisation" I call
"stereotyping" -- even when the stereotype is often true, it is not
universally true. I prefer to get to know people as individuals.
Do you complain when Feminists say " *All* men are rapists " ?

As a matter of fact, I do. I think it's stupid, wrong headed, a
dangerous attitude -- what more do you want? I've criticized such
attitudes in public ways, objected whenever I hear any woman claiming
that "all men are <fill in the blank>" and will continue to do so
whenever it happens.

Is that good enough? Or do you just not believe me?
Yeah, didn't think so... from their ex-wives and when they refuse to see their own responsibility in the breakup of their marriages, it is hard to sympathize. So, having the woman break up the marriage ( The way it is, from 70% to 91% of cases ) isn't, to you, as serious a cause for criticism as men who had that bomb dropped on them being righteously pissed off. Yep, you're a man-hater. Which IS a synonym for " Feminist "... The same thing is true about women who are bitter and who claim they are not receiving child support so all dads are deadbeats. Yet, the pop media says the same things. Have you contacted CNN, ABC, the NYTimes, et al, to explain their error to them ? Yeah, didn't think so... More proof of your misandry, and hypocrisy... It's not true and they are most likely in denial about what they did that precipitated the breakup of their marriages as well. Yet, that 70-91% figure still stands... Anger and bitterness are a phase that they need to get through if they want to get things working for them. I don't believe staying angry and bitter helps them much any more than it helps their children. Translation: " How dare men feel things I don't like them feeling "...


Do you want things to change? Or do you just want to wallow in your
anger and bitterness? I don't see how what YOU are doing manages to
change anything.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On 20 Nov 2003 01:00:49 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Do you complain when Feminists say " *All* men are rapists " ?

Yes I certainly do. Ime, very few men are rapists.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article <t44orvoqmec79ks1341eupo1s3e20g2e3v@4ax.com>,
toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:32:34 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: When a marriage breaks apart, it seems to me that it would be a lot better for the children if both parents put aside the animosity they may have for each other and worked out an equitable joint custody arrangement that allowed the children to have a good life both physically and emotionally.It would be much better if neither parent was filled with animosity.Unfortunately many people need psychologically to work up a lot of angerto get the energy to get a divorce, and can not let it go afterwards.Many times the children are used as pawns to "get back at" the ex. Yes they are. By both sides.As for "joint custody arrangement," any custody arrangement violates thechild's fundamental human right to both parents. The child has a rightto full support and association with/from either parent as often ashe/she likes. Joint custody provides both parents with access. As to *as often as he or she likes* that depends on the age of the child and the ability of the parents to see what is the least disruptive to the child's life, imo. Shuttling from one parent to the other is often hard on the child. I do believe the child should be given the choice of which parent s/he lives with although this is not really feasible for children under the age of 3. Most courts probably don't allow the child to choose until much later, but I would allow the child to choose only with some provision for not yoyoing back and forth if the child wanted to change homes in midstream. Unless there is abuse, it seems logical that the child should live with one parent for the school year at least so as not to disrupt their education.

Some of the healthiest divorces I've seen are where the parents have
agreed to live in the same school district until their child/ren is/are
out of school, so they could go back and forth during the school year
with relative ease. I knew one where they actually lived in two halves
of a duplex, so the children really DID have pretty much unfettered
access to both parents. Of course, the parents had to work pretty hard
at maintaining a civil relationship, communicating about school work,
and had a pretty amicable divorce! I've known another where the KIDS
got custody of the house; the parents rented a two bedroom apartment,
and each parent took turns living in the house for a month at a time
while the other parent had the apartment. (The kids visited the
apartment at least once a week as well, so they saw both parents
regularly.)

And right now I know a divorce where the woman has decided on a career
change that could require her to move. She and her ex sat down, and the
two of them agreed on parameters for her job search. He feels
relatively mobile and was happy to support her by moving as well, but
there are parts of the country he does not wish to live. When she DID
find a job in another part of the country, part of her negotiation
included moving expenses for HIM. She has moved, and he is in the
process of settling things here so he can move as well. She absolutely
did NOT want to move their child away from being able to see his Dad on
a regular basis.

I also know one family where, when they decided to split, they decided
to also join the same church. Most Sundays, both parents and the kids
are at church -- they often move from one house to the other on Sundays.
This is the parent's way of offering some stability to their children in
the face of their breakup. From this outsider's point of view, it seems
to be working pretty well.

The best situation is for the marriage to not fail. But I DO appreciate
seeing healthy divorces, where the needs of the children are taken
seriously and neither adult seems to be motivated by a desire to hurt
the other.
Statistically the most dangerous place for a child to live is in asingle mother headed home, especially if she has a parade ofnew studs. Again, I agree that having new boyfriends tends to place the child in danger, I think the same can be said of the man who has a lot of new girlfriends as well.

No -- statistically, children are in most danger from an adult male
living in their house to whom they are not related. Every study I've
seen shows the same thing. I don't know if it's true that they are in
most danger when a woman has an "uncle of the month" approach to dating
and living with a variety of men -- that isn't healthy for the children
in so MANY ways it almost doesn't matter! -- but I can easily believe
that it is true.

Children are not in nearly as much danger from adult women living with
them to whom they are not related.
But a single parent home needn't be dangerous for the child. It depends on both biological parents being adult and vigilant about who their new partners are.

I'd agree with that; I have a lot of respect for single parents who
work hard at developing new adult relationships in ways that are not
detrimental to their children, and who are careful about moving new
people into their children's lives. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:39:05 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
If such anti-men hate stereotypes are typical of whatever newsgroup youfrequent then please go away.Bob

You initiated the x-posting. You go away.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:32:34 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:When a marriage breaks apart, it seems to me that it would bea lot better for the children if both parents put aside the animositythey may have for each other and worked out an equitable jointcustody arrangement that allowed the children to have a goodlife both physically and emotionally.It would be much better if neither parent was filled with animosity.Unfortunately many people need psychologically to work up a lot of angerto get the energy to get a divorce, and can not let it go afterwards.Many times the children are used as pawns to "get back at" the ex. Yes they are. By both sides.As for "joint custody arrangement," any custody arrangement violates thechild's fundamental human right to both parents. The child has a rightto full support and association with/from either parent as often ashe/she likes. Joint custody provides both parents with access.

As long as it doesn't include the myth of joint custody coupled with the
reality of feminist residential custody. Only the residential custody
really matters.


As to *as often as he or she likes* that depends on the age of the child and the ability of the parents to see what is the least disruptive to the child's life, imo. Shuttling from one parent to the other is often hard on the child. I do believe the child should be given the choice of which parent s/he lives with although this is not really feasible for children under the age of 3. Most courts probably don't allow the child to choose until much later,

The courts ought to stay the hell out of the child's life unless the
child is represented by adequate legal counsel so his/her interests,
opinions and desires can be hard by the court.

Yes, infants need breast milk. Islamic law mostly assumes that children
belong with their mother until age 7, and with their father after that.
Their system works much better than ours.

but I would allow the child to choose only with some provision for not yoyoing back and forth if the child wanted to change homes in midstream.

I knew one school age child who spent alternate weeks with the other
parent. He seemed to be doing quite well.

Unless there is abuse,

Allegations of abuse don't count. Only criminal conviction for child
abuse ought to matter. And the CPS bigots are very discriminatory
agaisnt men at present.

it seems logical that the child should live with one parent for the school year at least so as not to disrupt their education.

I knew one school age child who spent alternate weeks with the other
parent. He seemed to be doing quite well.

Statistically the most dangerous place for a child to live is in asingle mother headed home, especially if she has a parade ofnew studs. Again, I agree that having new boyfriends tends to place the child in danger, I think the same can be said of the man who has a lot of new girlfriends as well.

Statistically the father's girlfriends don't matter much. The home of
the father results in superior outcomes in every measurable criteria.

But a single parent home needn't be dangerous for the child. It depends on both biological parents being adult and vigilant about who their new partners are. Dorothy

Statistically the home of the father is much safer for a child than
anywhere else. Women do about twice as much child abuse as men, and
fathers do the least abuse while protecting the child from abuse by
others. Children growing up with fathers also are less likely to get
killed in crime, less likely to get pregnant or STDs, less likely to be
convicted of criminal acts, more likely to succeed in school, more
likely to succeed in future relationships, etc.

Bob

On 20 Nov 2003 01:18:41 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Kathy Cole (kathy@scconsult.com) writes: This is a fine sentiment, which would be more palatable and likely more successful, if you didn't sound like a raving, woman-hating extremist when espousing it. Translation: " You're right, just in the wrong way. " The fallacy of this is clear enough. You value style *over* substance. Got it. We can now discount your words, and they are substance free.

I'm sorry you feel that way. What would you suggest, as an alternative
to more extreme rhetoric, that would be likely to result in what you
would see as changes in the laws to even the playing field? I'd really
be surprised if some of the language in this thread really helps to get
taken seriously by the people who actually write the laws, and that was
what prompted my post above.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:01:38 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
I knew one school age child who spent alternate weeks with the other parent. He seemed to be doing quite well.

That's what is currently happening with my oldest. Certainly, shared
parenting where the parents live physically close by each other and can
cooperate should confer the best result for all involved.

dragonlady wrote: I haven't done any "misandrist hate rhetoric" -- though apparently by the very fact that I am a woman you are able to read that into what I have written. meh

Nope. Its the continual use of common feminist misandry in your posts.

Unfortunately many women today have been taught the propaganda of
feminism until they understand it as "truth" and repeat it as "just a
manner of speaking." Its all still misandry.

Bob

In article <3FBC2892.2090706@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
dragonlady wrote: I haven't done any "misandrist hate rhetoric" -- though apparently by the very fact that I am a woman you are able to read that into what I have written. meh Nope. Its the continual use of common feminist misandry in your posts. Unfortunately many women today have been taught the propaganda of feminism until they understand it as "truth" and repeat it as "just a manner of speaking." Its all still misandry. Bob

You and Andre seem to be saying there are three types of women:

1 - women who admit they hate men; and
2 - women who claim to be classic feminists, and are therefore really
misandrists who hate men; and
3 - women who claim to support equality between women and men, and
therefore must really be "femeriods" who hate men.

Are there any women who you think genuinely support equality between
women and men? Do you believe ANY women like men? What sorts of things
might we say that would convince you that we DID believe in real
equality and are not men haters? Or do you think only men are capable
of really believing in equality?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Kathy Cole wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:55:11 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Kathy Cole wrote:This is a fine sentiment, which would be more palatable and likely moresuccessful, if you didn't sound like a raving, woman-hating extremistwhen espousing it.Your objection would sound a lot more palatable if you didn't keepsupporting misandrist bigotry in almost every post. Hate is not a goodway to make friends. I don't agree with your characterization of my words as bigotry or hate, but you are of course welcome to your own interpretation and opinion.


LOL. Keep posting feminist hate dogma, and let the readers sort it out.

As I just mentioned in another followup, I am offering what I believe is practical advice. To the extent you want systemic change, you have to work the political system.

All the political system today strongly favors feminist anti-men
positions. You are right that men need to go to politicians and demand
change.

That means talking with politicians and others who influence policy-making, and working to gradually introduce improvements to the laws.

Do you ever wonder why the majority of Americans no longer will vote for
any of the lying scoundrels? A typical bureaucratic government
throughout history tends to last about 200 years before it becomes so
bloated and abhorrent that the citizens no longer will support it and it
is torn down and replaced. The US is now well past its 200 years.

If you want to be successful, it's more likely if you moderate the tone of what you advocate; if you want to be dismissed as a fringe whacko, well, keep doing what you're doing.


Feminist definition: "a fringe whacko" --> A man who rejects feminist
hate propaganda. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.

Next time Bob is in Shrilanka, Bob will do exactly what you tell him.
In the mean time your feminazi hate opinions better serve your femroid
friends.

Bob

dragonlady wrote: Do you want things to change? Or do you just want to wallow in your anger and bitterness? I don't see how what YOU are doing manages to change anything. meh

No problem Toots. The next change won't be initiated or run by your kind.

Bob

Banty wrote: In article <7s3orv0ivssnl1mge7q62b7fcban2g0d3o@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole says...On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:55:11 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Kathy Cole wrote:>This is a fine sentiment, which would be more palatable and likely more>successful, if you didn't sound like a raving, woman-hating extremist>when espousing it.Your objection would sound a lot more palatable if you didn't keepsupporting misandrist bigotry in almost every post. Hate is not a goodway to make friends.I don't agree with your characterization of my words as bigotry or hate,but you are of course welcome to your own interpretation and opinion.As I just mentioned in another followup, I am offering what I believe ispractical advice. To the extent you want systemic change, you have towork the political system. That means talking with politicians andothers who influence policy-making, and working to gradually introduceimprovements to the laws. If you want to be successful, it's morelikely if you moderate the tone of what you advocate; if you want to bedismissed as a fringe whacko, well, keep doing what you're doing. Worse than being dismissed as a fringe whackos, the level of hostility, presumption, and denigration leads their readers and listeners to wonder what personality or other disorder may have lead to their circumstances, and if theirs may be the few cases that might have made lack of contact with their children necessary. If one is that abusive to people who have simply written disagreeing words, folks wonder what behaviors one manifests in real life. It's a worse credibility problem than just being dismissed as a 'fringe whacko'. Banty Banty


Feminist definition: "a fringe whacko" --> A man who rejects feminist
hate propaganda. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.

Kathy doesn't have to agree. The next change won't be run by her kind.

Bob

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:52:24 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps one might believe that you think paying women is equivalent tosupporting children becasue of your previous comments about "deadbeatdads" (men who don't pay the woman) or maybe it is so very common amongfeminists who believe as you do.

No that's men who don't support their children.. It has nothing to do
with men who don't pay women, but with men who refuse to support
their children for whatever reason.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:03:02 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com>
wrote:
No. Its moms. Let HER pay for it. The child can be placed in adoption.That's awfully harsh on the kid, which is all I was trying to conveyabove.

And if you were a real dad, you would know that you don't throw away
the child even if that child is not your biological child. If you
love the child, then you don't cut him in half because you hate his
mother.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

dragonlady wrote: The best situation is for the marriage to not fail. But I DO appreciate seeing healthy divorces, where the needs of the children are taken seriously and neither adult seems to be motivated by a desire to hurt the other.

Bob has never seen a "healthy divorce" where children are involved. A
growing pile of research shows that children are better off with married
parents, even if they fight a lot.


Statistically the most dangerous place for a child to live is in asingle mother headed home, especially if she has a parade ofnew studs.Again, I agree that having new boyfriends tends to place thechild in danger, I think the same can be said of the man whohas a lot of new girlfriends as well.
No -- statistically, children are in most danger from an adult male living in their house to whom they are not related.

Yep, the mom with a parade of men through her bedroom is really bad for
kids. They have no father there to defend them.


But women do about twice as much child abuse as men, even counting her
latest lover, and women are twice as likely to abuse boys. Check
statistics from CPS in every state.

Every study I've seen shows the same thing. I don't know if it's true that they are in most danger when a woman has an "uncle of the month" approach to dating and living with a variety of men -- that isn't healthy for the children in so MANY ways it almost doesn't matter! -- but I can easily believe that it is true. Children are not in nearly as much danger from adult women living with them to whom they are not related.


Women do about twice as much child abuse as men, even counting her
latest lover, and women are twice as likely to abuse boys. Check
statistics from CPS in every state.

Children are in the least danger with their biological father. And have
the best probability of having a successful life.

But a single parent home needn't be dangerous for the child.It depends on both biological parents being adult and vigilantabout who their new partners are. I'd agree with that; I have a lot of respect for single parents who work hard at developing new adult relationships in ways that are not detrimental to their children, and who are careful about moving new people into their children's lives.


Single parent, female headed, homes are the most dangerous place for
children statistically. Sure there are exceptions, statistics count
overall totals, not individuals.

Bob

toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:39:05 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:If such anti-men hate stereotypes are typical of whatever newsgroup youfrequent then please go away.Bob You initiated the x-posting. You go away. Dorothy


Nope not Bob either. No luck there.

Bob

In article <uqborvcjnik9f07ql6i7bb0jepiq38etgm@4ax.com>,
toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:03:02 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com> wrote: No. Its moms. Let HER pay for it. The child can be placed in adoption.That's awfully harsh on the kid, which is all I was trying to conveyabove. And if you were a real dad, you would know that you don't throw away the child even if that child is not your biological child. If you love the child, then you don't cut him in half because you hate his mother.

Those who support DNA testing AFTER the man has been involved in active
parenting for a number of years seem to be saying that donating sperm is
the only thing that makes you a father.

I agree with paternity testing under some circumstances: when a baby is
first born if the father has any doubts, wether or not he is married to
the baby's mother; when a mother appears out of nowhere, claiming a
child of any age is "his" (whether or not she's asking for $$); if a
woman is successful at cutting off access to the man the children have
known as father, but is still asking for child support; there may be
others. As things stand in California right now, there is a "window of
opportunity" to challenge paternity -- if a man doesn't challenge it
within that window, he may not later demand tests to prove paternity.
(I have a friend who works in legal aid trying to keep people who are
found to be in contempt of court for not paying court ordered child
support out of jail; she frequently has to explain this particular part
of the law to her clients.)

Because the laws were written prior to the availability of DNA testing,
as far as I know all states still have the presumptive law that states
that a man who is married to a woman when she has a baby is presumed to
be that baby's father. Perhaps it is time to change that law, though
I'm not yet convinced.

However, once a child has known a man as his or her father for a number
of years, it seems the height of cruelty for the man to want to walk out
on that child upon discovering that the child's mother was unfaithful;
it is not the kid's fault, and the child may need a "real" father more
than ever -- a man who understands that fatherhood neither begins nor
ends with who donated the sperm.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:18:03 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
That femroid LIE about heart disease was debunked half a century ago.The only reason they didn't use female test subjects was to "protect"women from sometimes fatal results.

That's is not a good reason for not including women in the studies.
The femroid hate propaganda lies just keep on coming. Shame on you.

Whatever the *reasons,* women were not included in the studies and
thus the research doesn't necessarily work for them. And this same
is true for racial and ethnic minorities. That you wish to deny the
facts of history doesn't mean you are correct.

Wanting women to have access to the same kinds of research that
has been done on men is not hatred of men.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<bpfta4$1mjsnt$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... "RCB" <warspite88@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:611e5148.0311181904.2a6ae884@posting.google.c om... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<bpc2of$1n1dos$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... I do not see how a man could be head of the family if his wife did not agree. It is her acceptance of his leadership that makes him the head. Jayne I agree with almost all that you write Jayne, except for your last comment. It is NOT her acceptance of his leadership that makes him the head. The husband is the head just as Christ is head of the church. Thus it is not a wife who decides if the husband is the head, it is God who ordains him as such. [] I have a sense of conviction about what God wants from me in my marriage, but do not feel any calling to tell other people what they should do in theirs. I've seen that different Christians have different understandings about this and I don't want to argue about it with them. In my family, the husband is the head and he is the spiritual leader. Jayne

Well Jayne i have enjoyed everything you write. You are a mature and
intelligent woman of faith that much is clear. Its good to see a
"person" really thinking about whats going on in todays society.
Hopefully you will take what you have learned and know and in faith be
a voice to change this nation for the better.

One of the reasons our nation has gone so corrupt and astray from Gods
word. Is christians who were content with their easy life did not
speak out when zealous liberals set about their social revolutions.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:19:10 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:39:05 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:If such anti-men hate stereotypes are typical of whatever newsgroup youfrequent then please go away.Bob You initiated the x-posting. You go away. DorothyNope not Bob either. No luck there.Bob
The original post was not from a regular misc.kids
poster and was obviously from someone in soc.men
or alt-dads-rights or both since the article is from

[Printed with permission from the National Fatherhood Initiative]

From: Robert Gautier (robgautier@DCEmail.com)
Subject: 10 ways to be a better father


Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, misc.kids,
misc.legal, alt.mens-rights
Date: 2003-11-12 17:00:44 PST

Obviously it was an attempt to troll mk members and it worked
in a sense since several mk members have answered you.

OTOH, if you really don't want our responses, then you can
cut the thread back to your groups and we won't see them
and so won't answer.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:21:54 GMT, dragonlady
<mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:
However, once a child has known a man as his or her father for a numberof years, it seems the height of cruelty for the man to want to walk outon that child upon discovering that the child's mother was unfaithful;it is not the kid's fault, and the child may need a "real" father morethan ever -- a man who understands that fatherhood neither begins norends with who donated the sperm.

No kidding.

At any rate, this thread has run its course and they are simply
repeating themselves in an endless loop.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: Next time Bob is in Shrilanka, Bob will do exactly what you tell him. In the mean time your feminazi hate opinions better serve your femroid friends.

And once again. It's okay for you to use hateful terms like "feminazi",
but anything remotely negative that anyone says about men is a federal
crime to you.


P. Tierney

In article <bpf6i3$fa7$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
dragonlady (mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net) writes: In article <bpeod8$gfh$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,

How do you know what I have and have not gotten involved in supporting and protesting? Call it a judicious use of " house odds ".

In other words, your own bigotry about women.
You assume you know what I have and have not done based on no information whatsoever, other than that I am a woman and say I support equality. LOL. You just contradicted yourself, there, little lady. Try again.

How did I contradict myself, little man?
Your *posted words* were what led me to my conclusion. It appears... I was quite right. <laughs> Some of those things I've protested, some I have not. I don't agree with you 100% -- that does not make me a man hater, it means I think you are sometimes wrong. LOL. Yet, you CAN'T show how.

Why should I have to? You haven't gone into details about how you have
supported or opposed various causes. Isn't it enough that I tell you I
have?

Or are you saying that I can't show how I think you are wrong about some
things? Again, I'm not particularly interested in doing that.
Got it. > Some women are jerks, some men are > jerks, and MY experience is that they come in about equal numbers -- " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "... Exactly why I said "in MY experience" -- Since the TOPIC *wansn't* about *you*, then this was merly narcissistic irrelevence on your part. More proof that... I was right about you.

You frequently are speaking from your own experience. What do you call
that? " House odds "... it isn't evidence or statistical or anything else, only speaking from my own experience. I can do that, can't I? Sure. And, others can bring attention to the narcissism that it is.

No, speaking from your own experience is called "authenticity". Or, is free speech only for *you* ?

Have I ever suggested that you -- or anyone else -- should not speak?
Certainly, I am always interested in hearing what other people's
experiences have been. <laughs> > but I find most people to be rather likeable. I haven't commented upon > divorce or child custody -- I've seen some great, healthy divorces where > both parents are fully involved in their kids lives and continue to > treat their ex's with respect, and some where one parent or the other > (or both!) ought to be flogged for what they do to their kids and their > ex's. I've seen court cases that leave me, at best, puzzled -- I can't > imagine WHAT the judge was thinking, and I have not expressed any > opinion one way or the other about the individuals who have posted > here, nor do I intend to. > > How on earth can you call this hostile or hateful to men? You can have equality of opportunity or equality of *result*. The demand by women and women's groups for the latter IS anti men hatred. But, let some Festering Femmeroids say it in their own words... And you assume I agree with everything you've cited (again, I might add -- you already put all this stuff on this thread once)? Why? Based on what evidence? " House odds ". Plus, your *false claims* that men and women destroy marriages at comparable rates, when... thats proven not true. IOW, you were either *ignorant* or a *liar*. Which was it ?

Actually, *I* never said that. I've never said anything about the
percentages of marriages destroyed by men vs. women. Neither "ignorant"
nor "lie", just silent on this topic and listening to others, since it
is not something that I have looked into much. I think divorce is too
common -- whoever initiates it, for whatever reason.

Perhaps you can't tell women apart?
Some of the women you quote are, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other women of my acquaintance, idiots. So what? The point is that many women believe what those women said. And, if thats women saying insane thinigs, then it's your job, as another woman, to publically speak out against them, rather than try to hand wave them away. As... you just did. Busted...

No, I frequently speak out against some of those things. I don't try to
hand wave them away. I object -- loudly.

Do you treat ALL women like this, assuming you know what we think based on nothing more than your own prejudice? Why, do you claim to BE " all women " ?


No, just wondering if there are any women who you are capable of hearing
when they talk. Your anger and bitterness seem to have clogged your
ears.

I am not the person you think I am -- but you don't seem capable of
seeing who and what I really am.

You tell me what I believe, I tell you you are wrong, that I don't
believe those things at all -- and you call me insulting names and laugh
at me.

So I ask again -- have you any interest at all in who or what I really
am? Or is your mind so made up that you are unwilling to be confused
by facts?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: You could start by dropping the misandrist hate rhetoric of feminism.

Serious question: Do you *really* think that you are not using
any "hate rhetoric" yourself? I'd really like to know.



P. Tierney

On 19 Nov 2003 19:36:27 -0800, warspite88@yahoo.com (RCB) wrote:
Hopefully you will take what you have learned and know and in faith bea voice to change this nation for the better

Which nation. She's a Canadian, just so you know.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:03:02 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com> wrote:No. Its moms. Let HER pay for it. The child can be placed in adoption.That's awfully harsh on the kid, which is all I was trying to conveyabove. And if you were a real dad, you would know that you don't throw away the child even if that child is not your biological child. If you love the child, then you don't cut him in half because you hate his mother. Dorothy

You don't seem to comprehend the severity of the great offense a woman
does by paternity fraud. It is very emotionally devastating to both the
man who has been defrauded with a bastard child for some years, and to
the father who has never seen HIS child.

Blaming the nearest available man for her cheating, lying, and
destructive behavior doesn't cut it. SHE is guilty of depriving the
child of his real father, as well as causing the cuckolded man severe
emotional problems. She is the one responsible for the problem.

Bob

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:48:22 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com> wrote: In many states there is a new demand for DNA testing before any claim of "child support." California ex-governor Davis vetoed a law which would have prohibited state sanctioned paternity fraud. I'm sure that lots of men voted for recall becasue of that one.I agree in general that a man shouldn't have to pay to support a childwho isn't his, but if the man has been supporting that child for a longperiod of time (emotionally, economically, etc.), I have a hard timewith giving an automatic out from responsibility after, say, ten yearsof raising the kid. And I would agree with this also.

So, you believe that a woman who *successfully* ran a fraud should not
have any consequences...
Basically, it's not the kid's fault mom took dad for a ride. Again I agree.

It's not the dads, either, but you're fine with making him pay...
And a question for the men who are fighting for this? If you were a good dad, involved in the child's life and if you loved him, does finding out that he is not your biological offspring change that love?

Isn't it funny how the people who demand *choice* for women,
think that men need not have ANY ?

Ask moms if they would feel differently about a child they
thought was theirs, biologically, but was switched at the
hospital...

Thats, after all.... equality...
Do you still want to see him? And if so, wouldn't it be fair to support him? Not to support your ex-wife, but to support the child you claim to love.

No problem. If he wants it, let him have full custody, while
mommy frauder ( Whose active fraud constitutes child abuse, thus
losing her any rights to the child whose own family line she
*hid from him/her*... ), pays CS.
I know women who have abandoned biological offspring. I cannot imagine how they can do this at all. And by the same token, I cannot imagine a man who plays with and cares for a child would want to abandon that child simply because of a dna test although that would be fair legally.

<yawn> Your lack of imagination is no one else's problem...

Interesting how you tout your own *ignorance* as some kind of
cover for your lack of compassion for men...
(I come at this inhabiting the statistic of women initiatingseparations, by the way. My husband and I each have joint custody withour exes, and since my ex and I have roughly 50/50 physical custody,only my husband currently receives child support payments.)

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dragonlady wrote: In article <uqborvcjnik9f07ql6i7bb0jepiq38etgm@4ax.com>, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote:On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:03:02 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com>wrote:>No. Its moms. Let HER pay for it. The child can be placed in adoption.That's awfully harsh on the kid, which is all I was trying to conveyabove.And if you were a real dad, you would know that you don't throw awaythe child even if that child is not your biological child. If youlove the child, then you don't cut him in half because you hate hismother. Those who support DNA testing AFTER the man has been involved in active parenting for a number of years seem to be saying that donating sperm is the only thing that makes you a father.


With DNA testing now showing the prevalence of wives whelping bastards,
many men now want DNA testiness as a routine at birth of every child.
The child has a basic human right to know his father, and the father has
a right to know his child.

It is also very presumptuous of a woman to tell a man that he has no
interest in knowing his own child. Shame on you. Have you ever heard a
woman scream when her kid was mixed up at a hospital? Men feel the same
way about our kid vs. someone else's kid.


I agree with paternity testing under some circumstances: when a baby is first born if the father has any doubts, wether or not he is married to the baby's mother; when a mother appears out of nowhere, claiming a child of any age is "his" (whether or not she's asking for $$); if a woman is successful at cutting off access to the man the children have known as father, but is still asking for child support; there may be others. As things stand in California right now, there is a "window of opportunity" to challenge paternity -- if a man doesn't challenge it within that window, he may not later demand tests to prove paternity. (I have a friend who works in legal aid trying to keep people who are found to be in contempt of court for not paying court ordered child support out of jail; she frequently has to explain this particular part of the law to her clients.)

The children from "monogamous" married wives turn out to have
"surprising" paternity in 10% to 30% of children depending on which
study you believe. Even 10% percent bastards is enough to fully justify
100% DNA testing at birth before the father's name goes on the birth
certificate.

The State of California, Davis and company, are all about collecting
maximum money from men and federal matching funds regardless of whether
or not its the right man. California is a disgrace. No wonder Davis
was impeached.

Because the laws were written prior to the availability of DNA testing, as far as I know all states still have the presumptive law that states that a man who is married to a woman when she has a baby is presumed to be that baby's father. Perhaps it is time to change that law, though I'm not yet convinced.

The laws are changing rapidly. Every child has a basic human right to
his/her father, not some other man. DNA testing ought to be as routine
as other medial tests done at birth.

However, once a child has known a man as his or her father for a number of years, it seems the height of cruelty for the man to want to walk out on that child upon discovering that the child's mother was unfaithful; it is not the kid's fault, and the child may need a "real" father more than ever -- a man who understands that fatherhood neither begins nor ends with who donated the sperm. meh

Yes, the longer the woman gets away with her lie the worse she his
hurting her kid and his/her real father. That's why DNA testing needs
to be routinely done at birth.

Bob

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:59:39 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:03:02 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com> wrote:>No. Its moms. Let HER pay for it. The child can be placed in adoption.That's awfully harsh on the kid, which is all I was trying to conveyabove. And if you were a real dad, you would know that you don't throw away the child even if that child is not your biological child. If you love the child, then you don't cut him in half because you hate his mother. DorothyYou don't seem to comprehend the severity of the great offense a womandoes by paternity fraud. It is very emotionally devastating to both theman who has been defrauded with a bastard child for some years, and tothe father who has never seen HIS child.Blaming the nearest available man for her cheating, lying, anddestructive behavior doesn't cut it. SHE is guilty of depriving thechild of his real father, as well as causing the cuckolded man severeemotional problems. She is the one responsible for the problem.Bob

So while you're busy defending the right of the non-bio father to
walk and ranting against the mother, uhm,
*where* does the child fit into this equation???
Seems you're a little too busy defending and ranting to worry about
the innocent short person in all of this.

Nan

dragonlady (mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net) writes: In article <bph3o1$1to$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:38:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>> It's hard to believe that the attitude behind such comments>> is the result of anyone's divorce. It seems more likely that>> it would've been a cause.>>I don't find it hard to believe at all. I keep seeing all these>criticisms of these men for being angry and bitter. Do>people expect them to be happy after what they have been>through? I don't think people expect them to be happy about their experiences, but I do think that when they generalize to *all women* Two points: One, " Feminist " and " woman " are NOT synomyms. Next, after doing a lot of research on such matters, it is evident that the majority of women do such things, as this fellow had to endure. So, whern making generalisations, its logical to go where the majority is. Personally, I try to avoid generalisations about women or about men -- or about gays or straights or Native Americans or Italians or any other identifyable group. What you call "generalisation" I call "stereotyping" -- even when the stereotype is often true, it is not universally true. I prefer to get to know people as individuals.

How PC of you. Nonetheless, people in many different groups are
not all freely interchangable cogs in the machine...

And, trends exist, whether or not you are too cowardly to see them.
Do you complain when Feminists say " *All* men are rapists " ? As a matter of fact, I do.

Then, please post a copy of your letter protesting this to NOW...

Uh huh.
I think it's stupid, wrong headed, a dangerous attitude -- what more do you want? I've criticized such attitudes in public ways, objected whenever I hear any woman claiming that "all men are <fill in the blank>" and will continue to do so whenever it happens. Is that good enough? Or do you just not believe me?

" Talk is cheap. " After thirty years of anti man demonisation, its
clear that your route of " quite discourse " with misandrists is NO
" favour " to men.
Yeah, didn't think so... from their ex-wives and when they refuse to see their own responsibility in the breakup of their marriages, it is hard to sympathize. So, having the woman break up the marriage ( The way it is, from 70% to 91% of cases ) isn't, to you, as serious a cause for criticism as men who had that bomb dropped on them being righteously pissed off. Yep, you're a man-hater. Which IS a synonym for " Feminist "...

Indeed.
The same thing is true about women who are bitter and who claim they are not receiving child support so all dads are deadbeats. Yet, the pop media says the same things. Have you contacted CNN, ABC, the NYTimes, et al, to explain their error to them ? Yeah, didn't think so... More proof of your misandry, and hypocrisy...

Indeed.
It's not true and they are most likely in denial about what they did that precipitated the breakup of their marriages as well. Yet, that 70-91% figure still stands... Anger and bitterness are a phase that they need to get through if they want to get things working for them. I don't believe staying angry and bitter helps them much any more than it helps their children. Translation: " How dare men feel things I don't like them feeling "... Do you want things to change? Or do you just want to wallow in your anger and bitterness? I don't see how what YOU are doing manages to change anything.

We are quite happy to stipulate any degree of *your ignorance* that
you feel is necessary to display...

It comes down to one thing: Women DON'T get to tell men how to protest
real injustices against men. If you cannot handle that.... TOUGH.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 20 Nov 2003 01:00:49 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Do you complain when Feminists say " *All* men are rapists " ? Yes I certainly do.

Post a copy of your letters proving this, with recipients and dates,
please.

" Talk is cheap. "
Ime, very few men are rapists.

And, a few women, too...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:18:03 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:That femroid LIE about heart disease was debunked half a century ago.The only reason they didn't use female test subjects was to "protect"women from sometimes fatal results. That's is not a good reason for not including women in the studies.The femroid hate propaganda lies just keep on coming. Shame on you. Whatever the *reasons,* women were not included in the studies and thus the research doesn't necessarily work for them. And this same is true for racial and ethnic minorities. That you wish to deny the facts of history doesn't mean you are correct. Wanting women to have access to the same kinds of research that has been done on men is not hatred of men. Dorothy

Blaming men for protecting women by only using men for risky testing is
hatred of men.

Bob

In article <3FBC2DE9.1020206@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Banty wrote: In article <7s3orv0ivssnl1mge7q62b7fcban2g0d3o@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole says...
If one is that abusive to people who have simply written disagreeing words, folks wonder what behaviors one manifests in real life.It's a worse credibility problem than just being dismissed as a 'fringe whacko'.
Feminist definition: "a fringe whacko" --> A man who rejects feministhate propaganda. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.Kathy doesn't have to agree. The next change won't be run by her kind.Bob

Who will run 'the next change'?

Banty

Nan wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:59:39 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:toto wrote:On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:03:02 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com>wrote:>>No. Its moms. Let HER pay for it. The child can be placed in adoption.>>That's awfully harsh on the kid, which is all I was trying to convey>above.And if you were a real dad, you would know that you don't throw awaythe child even if that child is not your biological child. If youlove the child, then you don't cut him in half because you hate hismother.DorothyYou don't seem to comprehend the severity of the great offense a womandoes by paternity fraud. It is very emotionally devastating to both theman who has been defrauded with a bastard child for some years, and tothe father who has never seen HIS child.Blaming the nearest available man for her cheating, lying, anddestructive behavior doesn't cut it. SHE is guilty of depriving thechild of his real father, as well as causing the cuckolded man severeemotional problems. She is the one responsible for the problem.Bob So while you're busy defending the right of the non-bio father to walk and ranting against the mother, uhm, *where* does the child fit into this equation??? Seems you're a little too busy defending and ranting to worry about the innocent short person in all of this. Nan

What part of "She is guilty of depriving the child of his real father"
did you fail to read?

The child has a fundamental human right to his/her parents. (Affirmed
in the UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child.) Lying to the child and
to another man about the paternity defrauds everyone involved.

Bob

In article <o3eorvchhpt6f8d4i4p4i00hmvvokr3mpl@4ax.com>, toto says...On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:21:54 GMT, dragonlady<mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:However, once a child has known a man as his or her father for a numberof years, it seems the height of cruelty for the man to want to walk outon that child upon discovering that the child's mother was unfaithful;it is not the kid's fault, and the child may need a "real" father morethan ever -- a man who understands that fatherhood neither begins norends with who donated the sperm.No kidding.At any rate, this thread has run its course and they are simplyrepeating themselves in an endless loop.

Like I said very early on in this thread, I think we're basically assuring that
their autonomic responses are functional. Sometimes I think we're talking to
generated-responses 'bots :-)

One thing of note: thus far it's been difficult to get what *would* make them
happy.

Banty

On 19 Nov 2003 17:17:00 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
To be really successful joint custody involved both parents pretty much staying in the same neighborhood or otherwise managing for consistency in schooling.

Right. As the kid or kids get older, they're able to come and go
between homes on their own schedules.
And over a long time. Folks have to committ and settle down. And that may mean sacrifices. IME where most of these arrangements fail is when one or other parent moves for job or another relationship. So then what. We've seen a few cases lately in these newsgroups.

Joint legal should be the default award in custody cases, and joint
physical wherever practical. Joint physical doesn't necessarily mean
50/50 parenting time; as I've mentioned, both my husband and I have
joint physical custody with our respective former spouses. Given the
extended distance between my hubby and his ex, though, joint legal is
closer to the working reality with respect to my step-daughter.

If her mom were to move closer, we'd certainly mutually revisit the
current parenting time division; as things stand now, she'll likely move
to live mostly with mom for high school, again by mutual agreement.

If an unresolvable disagreement were presented to the court for
resolution, the parent moving away should ordinarily have to meet a
higher burden of proof that the disruption justifies taking the child
away from his or her current environment. And the moving-away parent
should usually pay for travel associated with his or her parenting time.

Banty wrote: In article <3FBC2DE9.1020206@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Banty wrote:In article <7s3orv0ivssnl1mge7q62b7fcban2g0d3o@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole says...If one is that abusive to people who have simply written disagreeing words,folks wonder what behaviors one manifests in real life.It's a worse credibility problem than just being dismissed as a 'fringe whacko'.Feminist definition: "a fringe whacko" --> A man who rejects feministhate propaganda. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.Kathy doesn't have to agree. The next change won't be run by her kind.Bob Who will run 'the next change'? Banty

MEN

In article <3FBC4A2A.1040701@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Banty wrote: In article <3FBC2DE9.1020206@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Banty wrote:>In article <7s3orv0ivssnl1mge7q62b7fcban2g0d3o@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole says...>>If one is that abusive to people who have simply written disagreeing words,>folks wonder what behaviors one manifests in real life.>>It's a worse credibility problem than just being dismissed as a 'fringe whacko'.>Feminist definition: "a fringe whacko" --> A man who rejects feministhate propaganda. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.Kathy doesn't have to agree. The next change won't be run by her kind.Bob Who will run 'the next change'? BantyMEN

Well, "android" already being taken (thinking of "femroid"), what term would you
apply to your own agenda? How about "masculoid". :-)

You have nothing to offer but your own wish for domination. Me thinks this
bitterness of yours is a massive case of simply not getting your way.

Banty

In article <3FBC4B5D.3000805@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Andre Lieven wrote:
Its like Bob's wife was saying tonight at dinner. She gets so fed upwith imbeciles who claim that "violence never solves anything." Thetruth is that violence has been the ultimate solution to most ofhistories major changes and solutions.

So, putting this and your last post together, you forsee a 'next change' to a
world run by men, brought about by violence?

Banty

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:32:02 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Blaming men for protecting women by only using men for risky testing is hatred of men.

How is it blaming to evaluate whether the conclusions drawn from a study
conducted only on men are actually equivalently (medically and
scientifically) applicable to women?

In article <coiorv087juuqsjk65ifsqu8dhd5qe620e@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole says...On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:32:02 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: Blaming men for protecting women by only using men for risky testing is hatred of men.How is it blaming to evaluate whether the conclusions drawn from a studyconducted only on men are actually equivalently (medically andscientifically) applicable to women?

Kathy, I think it is that we're to appreciate men's decisions not to study women
to protect us from being studied.

Banty

In article <bphf63$r3n$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 20 Nov 2003 01:00:49 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Do you complain when Feminists say " *All* men are rapists " ? Yes I certainly do. Post a copy of your letters proving this, with recipients and dates, please. " Talk is cheap. " Ime, very few men are rapists. And, a few women, too... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.

I don't expect you to "prove" that you have taken public positions. I
take you at your word. Why am I not afforded the same respect from you?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bphinn0tt4@drn.newsguy.com... In article <3FBC4A2A.1040701@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Banty wrote: In article <3FBC2DE9.1020206@hotmail.com>, Bob says...>Banty wrote:>>>In article <7s3orv0ivssnl1mge7q62b7fcban2g0d3o@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole
says...>>>>>If one is that abusive to people who have simply written disagreeing
words,>>folks wonder what behaviors one manifests in real life.>>>>It's a worse credibility problem than just being dismissed as a
'fringe whacko'.>>>>>Feminist definition: "a fringe whacko" --> A man who rejects feminist>hate propaganda. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.>>Kathy doesn't have to agree. The next change won't be run by her kind.>>Bob Who will run 'the next change'? BantyMEN Well, "android" already being taken (thinking of "femroid"), what term
would you apply to your own agenda? How about "masculoid". :-)

Any term with roots in science fiction would be applicable, since
the liklihood people like Bob running anything in this world stands
about as good of a chance as Marvin the Martian and his Space
Modulator taking over the earth.


P. Tierney

In article <bphf2n$qu6$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
dragonlady (mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net) writes: In article <bph3o1$1to$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:38:04 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" > <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: > >>> It's hard to believe that the attitude behind such comments >>> is the result of anyone's divorce. It seems more likely that >>> it would've been a cause. >> >>I don't find it hard to believe at all. I keep seeing all these >>criticisms of these men for being angry and bitter. Do >>people expect them to be happy after what they have been >>through? > > I don't think people expect them to be happy about their experiences, > but I do think that when they generalize to *all women* Two points: One, " Feminist " and " woman " are NOT synomyms. Next, after doing a lot of research on such matters, it is evident that the majority of women do such things, as this fellow had to endure. So, whern making generalisations, its logical to go where the majority is. Personally, I try to avoid generalisations about women or about men -- or about gays or straights or Native Americans or Italians or any other identifyable group. What you call "generalisation" I call "stereotyping" -- even when the stereotype is often true, it is not universally true. I prefer to get to know people as individuals. How PC of you. Nonetheless, people in many different groups are not all freely interchangable cogs in the machine...

That's my point: not all women are interchangable. We are individuals,
and would generally prefer to be treated as individuals rather than
tarred with one brush -- just like, I assume, you would prefer that men
be treated as individuals rather than interchangable cogs. And, trends exist, whether or not you are too cowardly to see them. Do you complain when Feminists say " *All* men are rapists " ? As a matter of fact, I do. Then, please post a copy of your letter protesting this to NOW... Uh huh.

I resigned my very brief NOW membership decades ago. I no longer have a
copy of the letter; it was lost in a house fire.
I think it's stupid, wrong headed, a dangerous attitude -- what more do you want? I've criticized such attitudes in public ways, objected whenever I hear any woman claiming that "all men are <fill in the blank>" and will continue to do so whenever it happens. Is that good enough? Or do you just not believe me? " Talk is cheap. " After thirty years of anti man demonisation, its clear that your route of " quite discourse " with misandrists is NO " favour " to men.

I've never been to a demonstration. Just not my thing, I suppose. And
I've never gotten into the "anti-man" thing, even living in Madison, WI
in the 70's, when it did seem to be pretty much the feminist line, at
least on campus. I left several organizations, because I was not
willing to go along with "male bashing", argued with individual women,
and joined organizations where both women and men worked together for
genuine equality.

And I'm not trying to do men any "favour" -- I'm just working for social
justice, and that includes equality for men and women. I think that
would be better for both women and men.
Translation: " How dare men feel things I don't like them feeling "... Do you want things to change? Or do you just want to wallow in your anger and bitterness? I don't see how what YOU are doing manages to change anything. We are quite happy to stipulate any degree of *your ignorance* that you feel is necessary to display... It comes down to one thing: Women DON'T get to tell men how to protest real injustices against men. If you cannot handle that.... TOUGH.


I don't recall suggesting what you should and shouldn't do. I've only
observed that I don't think your approach will be effective. If I'm
wrong, then what you are doing WILL increase justice. That would,
overall, be a good thing, so I suppose I hope I'm wrong.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article <bphei0$pm6$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:48:22 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com> wrote:> In many states there is a new demand for DNA testing before any> claim of "child support." California ex-governor Davis vetoed> a law which would have prohibited state sanctioned paternity> fraud. I'm sure that lots of men voted for recall becasue of> that one.I agree in general that a man shouldn't have to pay to support a childwho isn't his, but if the man has been supporting that child for a longperiod of time (emotionally, economically, etc.), I have a hard timewith giving an automatic out from responsibility after, say, ten yearsof raising the kid. And I would agree with this also. So, you believe that a woman who *successfully* ran a fraud should not have any consequences...Basically, it's not the kid's fault mom took dad for a ride. Again I agree. It's not the dads, either, but you're fine with making him pay... And a question for the men who are fighting for this? If you were a good dad, involved in the child's life and if you loved him, does finding out that he is not your biological offspring change that love? Isn't it funny how the people who demand *choice* for women, think that men need not have ANY ? Ask moms if they would feel differently about a child they thought was theirs, biologically, but was switched at the hospital...

On the rare occassions when that has happened, the women who have been
raising the babies to whom they were not biologically related have
generally fought to KEEP the baby they've been raising.

There have been exceptions, to be sure, and the situation is not without
anguish -- but if the child has been in the house for more than a very
short time, generally the families want to establish contact with their
biological child, but do NOT want to lose custody of the child they have
been raising.


meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

> What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and "deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery. Bob

What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybe
there could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent
(notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts for
everything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check for
half of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodial
parent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodial
parent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.
There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much less
than the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess there
would need to be some sort of limits or guidelines.

By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn't
personally affect me.

Renee

On 20 Nov 2003 04:05:20 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Ask moms if they would feel differently about a child theythought was theirs, biologically, but was switched at thehospital...
Well, I don't know about others, but again, it would depend
on when this was found out.

If you raise a child for years and then find out that they were
switched in the hospital, I certainly would not disrupt two
children's lives and would still love the child I raised. I would
not even *know* the child who was with other parents.

By the same token, I have seen children ripped from adoptive
parents who loved them by biological parents who had no
contact with them for the first years of their lives. It's no favor
to the children whether it is the bio mom or the bio dad who
does this. If you are a true parent, you do what is best for the
child, not what *you* want as an adult.
Thats, after all.... equality...

I certainly would ask mom's and dad's the same question.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:32:02 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wanting women to have access to the same kinds of research that has been done on men is not hatred of men. DorothyBlaming men for protecting women by only using men for risky testing ishatred of men.

No. It's not. I recognize historically that the motive was good.
The results, however, have not been good. Good motives
don't justify the results of the denial. Thus we move *forward*
and do new studies that do involve research on women.

I recognize that historically, men have protected women from
many things. But we are not in a day when it is necessary to
do so without asking if the woman wants to be protected.

Btw, I don't *blame* men. I figure they were programmed that
way and partly by their own mothers.

In the same way, I think we need to move forward on research
in birth control for men. I see no reason to dwell on past injustice,
except to note that it happened. We need to move on to changing
this rather than worrying about why it happened.

And, btw, the historical reason why BC research focused on
women was because after all, the man doesn't get pregnant
and carry the child for nine months and he can could historically
cut and run without consequence until very recently. Thus it
was women who bore the burden of the unwanted child not the
man. That is different today with dna testing because paternity
can be proven and the courts generally do insist that the father
pay support so the burden on the woman is reduced. I would
really like to see effective birth control for men that works.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:08:43 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
dragonlady wrote: In article <uqborvcjnik9f07ql6i7bb0jepiq38etgm@4ax.com>, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote:On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:03:02 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com>wrote:>>No. Its moms. Let HER pay for it. The child can be placed in adoption.>>That's awfully harsh on the kid, which is all I was trying to convey>above.And if you were a real dad, you would know that you don't throw awaythe child even if that child is not your biological child. If youlove the child, then you don't cut him in half because you hate hismother. Those who support DNA testing AFTER the man has been involved in active parenting for a number of years seem to be saying that donating sperm is the only thing that makes you a father.With DNA testing now showing the prevalence of wives whelping bastards,many men now want DNA testiness as a routine at birth of every child.The child has a basic human right to know his father, and the father hasa right to know his child.
I would say go for it.
It is also very presumptuous of a woman to tell a man that he has nointerest in knowing his own child. Shame on you. Have you ever heard awoman scream when her kid was mixed up at a hospital? Men feel the sameway about our kid vs. someone else's kid.
If this is discovered early, certainly both the mom and the dad will
be upset and want to fix the switch. But in cases where this is
discovered after some years of raising the child, I would fight to
keep the child I raised. And I think most women would do this also.
I assume that this might be true of men too though I can't *know*
that for sure.

Would you dump a child that the two of you adopted at birth if
you divorced? There is no biological connection, but if you raised
that child, I hope you would still remain his dad.
I agree with paternity testing under some circumstances: when a baby is first born if the father has any doubts, wether or not he is married to the baby's mother; when a mother appears out of nowhere, claiming a child of any age is "his" (whether or not she's asking for $$); if a woman is successful at cutting off access to the man the children have known as father, but is still asking for child support; there may be others. As things stand in California right now, there is a "window of opportunity" to challenge paternity -- if a man doesn't challenge it within that window, he may not later demand tests to prove paternity. (I have a friend who works in legal aid trying to keep people who are found to be in contempt of court for not paying court ordered child support out of jail; she frequently has to explain this particular part of the law to her clients.)The children from "monogamous" married wives turn out to have"surprising" paternity in 10% to 30% of children depending on whichstudy you believe. Even 10% percent bastards is enough to fully justify100% DNA testing at birth before the father's name goes on the birthcertificate.The State of California, Davis and company, are all about collectingmaximum money from men and federal matching funds regardless of whetheror not its the right man. California is a disgrace. No wonder Daviswas impeached. Because the laws were written prior to the availability of DNA testing, as far as I know all states still have the presumptive law that states that a man who is married to a woman when she has a baby is presumed to be that baby's father. Perhaps it is time to change that law, though I'm not yet convinced.The laws are changing rapidly. Every child has a basic human right tohis/her father, not some other man. DNA testing ought to be as routineas other medial tests done at birth. However, once a child has known a man as his or her father for a number of years, it seems the height of cruelty for the man to want to walk out on that child upon discovering that the child's mother was unfaithful; it is not the kid's fault, and the child may need a "real" father more than ever -- a man who understands that fatherhood neither begins nor ends with who donated the sperm. mehYes, the longer the woman gets away with her lie the worse she hishurting her kid and his/her real father. That's why DNA testing needsto be routinely done at birth.
Go for it. I certainly wouldn't object to that.
Bob

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:59:39 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
You don't seem to comprehend the severity of the great offense a womandoes by paternity fraud. It is very emotionally devastating to both theman who has been defrauded with a bastard child for some years, and tothe father who has never seen HIS child.
That's because I believe being a mother or father is more than just
the sperm and egg.

I agree that the fraud is very real and the man is hurt badly by it,
but my interest lies with the child here.

Once again, suppose you marry and adopt a child.. Is that child
no longer yours if you divorce? Do you abandon him or her because
s/he is not your biological offspring and you and your ex-wife have
divorced?
Blaming the nearest available man for her cheating, lying, anddestructive behavior doesn't cut it. SHE is guilty of depriving thechild of his real father, as well as causing the cuckolded man severeemotional problems. She is the one responsible for the problem.

Yes, she is responsible in the case of paternity fraud. But making
the child suffer for her actions is not the act of someone who is
a real dad.

Let's take a hypothetical case. You find out when the child is
2 years old that s/he is not your biological child. You are obviously
hurt and you cannot trust your wife, so you divorce her. Do you
really stop loving your two year old even though s/he is not your
biological offspring? If so, did you ever love that child at all?







--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 20 Nov 2003 04:29:58 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
I was specific to a lengthy pre-existing parenting relationship with the kid for a reason. Definitely I think any father with doubts about the kid's paternity should request the test, and certainly the default position should be to disallow child support when dad's not really dad.Well, Ex-Gov Davis vetoed that law, and in the UK, they were seriouslylooking at making a law that would make illegal any man's getting a DNAtest done, if there wasn't the permission of the mother...

I think that's pretty stupid. I have no objection to making DNA tests
for paternity routine or at least available at the request of either
party. It makes sense that if a man wants one, then it should be
given. I am not sure what that says about trust in your
relationships, but it seems to me that if you are convinced that
it is needed, you should have that option.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:40:11 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nan wrote:
So while you're busy defending the right of the non-bio father to walk and ranting against the mother, uhm, *where* does the child fit into this equation??? Seems you're a little too busy defending and ranting to worry about the innocent short person in all of this. NanWhat part of "She is guilty of depriving the child of his real father"did you fail to read?

I didn't fail to read anything. You're still too busy blaming the
mother and not caring about the child.
The child has a fundamental human right to his/her parents. (Affirmedin the UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child.) Lying to the child andto another man about the paternity defrauds everyone involved.

And you're still too busy blaming to care about the child.

Nan

In article <f6980f4e.0311200351.5374fb1b@posting.google.com>, Renee says... What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and "deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery. Bob What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybethere could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent(notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts foreverything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check forhalf of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodialparent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodialparent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much lessthan the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess therewould need to be some sort of limits or guidelines. By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn'tpersonally affect me.Renee

This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The only
drawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement would
have to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for
the children.

I'd like to see responses to this idea.

Banty

Banty wrote: In article <3FBC4A2A.1040701@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Banty wrote:In article <3FBC2DE9.1020206@hotmail.com>, Bob says...>Banty wrote:>>>>In article <7s3orv0ivssnl1mge7q62b7fcban2g0d3o@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole says...>>>>>If one is that abusive to people who have simply written disagreeing words,>>folks wonder what behaviors one manifests in real life.>>>>It's a worse credibility problem than just being dismissed as a 'fringe whacko'.>>>>Feminist definition: "a fringe whacko" --> A man who rejects feminist>hate propaganda. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.>>Kathy doesn't have to agree. The next change won't be run by her kind.>>BobWho will run 'the next change'?BantyMEN Well, "android" already being taken (thinking of "femroid"), what term would you apply to your own agenda? How about "masculoid". :-) You have nothing to offer but your own wish for domination. Me thinks this bitterness of yours is a massive case of simply not getting your way. Banty

Think what you like. The era of feminist domination and subjugation of
men is going away. It has been a disaster for women and children as
well as for men.

Bob

Banty wrote: In article <3FBC4B5D.3000805@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Andre Lieven wrote:Its like Bob's wife was saying tonight at dinner. She gets so fed upwith imbeciles who claim that "violence never solves anything." Thetruth is that violence has been the ultimate solution to most ofhistories major changes and solutions. So, putting this and your last post together, you forsee a 'next change' to a world run by men, brought about by violence? Banty

Milquetoast is for children. Deal with it.

Bob

Kathy Cole wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:32:02 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Blaming men for protecting women by only using men for risky testingis hatred of men. How is it blaming to evaluate whether the conclusions drawn from a study conducted only on men are actually equivalently (medically and scientifically) applicable to women?


Twisting and spinning only shows it off.

Bob

Banty wrote: In article <coiorv087juuqsjk65ifsqu8dhd5qe620e@4ax.com>, Kathy Cole says...On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:32:02 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Blaming men for protecting women by only using men for risky testingis hatred of men.How is it blaming to evaluate whether the conclusions drawn from a studyconducted only on men are actually equivalently (medically andscientifically) applicable to women? Kathy, I think it is that we're to appreciate men's decisions not to study women to protect us from being studied. Banty

Uh, no. Repeating the usual feminist hate lies is expressing your
hatred of men, misandry. It is not about studying the history of medical
research.


Bob

P. Tierney wrote: Any term with roots in science fiction would be applicable, since the liklihood people like Bob running anything in this world stands about as good of a chance as Marvin the Martian and his Space Modulator taking over the earth.

A typical feminazi approach. When she's out of logical responses to the
topic she shifts to ad-hominem attacks.

Sorry Toots, that standard feminist effort to silence MEN doesn't work
on soc.men. It only displays your misandry. Deal with it.

Bob

Renee wrote:What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in thegovernment now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feministsocial experiment called "child support" is eradicated before anothermillion children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men whoare angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for herhate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack menwho support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.

What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybe there could be an account held by a third party.

No Toots, its not about the money. Get that "an account" out of your
head. Forcing men to pay women is WRONG. Forcing men to pay women is
NOT supporting a child. You support a child by putting out a plate at
dinner, providing shelter and clothing, etc. NOT by paying women.

The mother also has 100% concurrent responsibility to support her child.

The custodial parent (notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts for everything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check for half of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodial parent isn't spending the money on him/herself.

Money, money, check, money. What is wrong with females these days. All
they can talk about is men paying them money. Children are a pawn in
their game to bet money, money, checks, money, money.

The non-custodial parent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs. There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much less than the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess there would need to be some sort of limits or guidelines. By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn't personally affect me. Renee

Get a new plan Toots. Its not MONEY. Its about the children.

But like a typical femroid, all you can talk about is men-pay, women get
paid. Shame on you.

Bob

toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:32:02 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Wanting women to have access to the same kinds of research thathas been done on men is not hatred of men.DorothyBlaming men for protecting women by only using men for risky testing ishatred of men. No. It's not. I recognize historically that the motive was good. The results, however, have not been good. Good motives don't justify the results of the denial. Thus we move *forward* and do new studies that do involve research on women. I recognize that historically, men have protected women from many things. But we are not in a day when it is necessary to do so without asking if the woman wants to be protected. Btw, I don't *blame* men. I figure they were programmed that way and partly by their own mothers. In the same way, I think we need to move forward on research in birth control for men. I see no reason to dwell on past injustice, except to note that it happened. We need to move on to changing this rather than worrying about why it happened. And, btw, the historical reason why BC research focused on women was because after all, the man doesn't get pregnant and carry the child for nine months and he can could historically cut and run without consequence until very recently. Thus it was women who bore the burden of the unwanted child not the man. That is different today with dna testing because paternity can be proven and the courts generally do insist that the father pay support so the burden on the woman is reduced. I would really like to see effective birth control for men that works. Dorothy


The historical reason why birth control research focused on women, and
ONLY on women for half a century is because NOBODY CARED about men.
Your continual misandrist prejudice is the way women think. In between
claiming not to hate men, you continually repeat old tired feminist
misandrist propaganda.

Courts were doing exactly the same thing in the 1950s when "The Pill"
was first developed. Those feminist hate lies don't fly here Toots.

Today the beginnings of a men's movement are making enough noise so that
some minimal research is being spent on developing a contraceptive pills
for men.

Bob

toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:08:43 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:dragonlady wrote:In article <uqborvcjnik9f07ql6i7bb0jepiq38etgm@4ax.com>, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote:>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:03:02 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com>>wrote:>>>>>>No. Its moms. Let HER pay for it. The child can be placed in adoption.>>>>That's awfully harsh on the kid, which is all I was trying to convey>>above.>>And if you were a real dad, you would know that you don't throw away>the child even if that child is not your biological child. If you>love the child, then you don't cut him in half because you hate his>mother.>>Those who support DNA testing AFTER the man has been involved in activeparenting for a number of years seem to be saying that donating sperm isthe only thing that makes you a father.With DNA testing now showing the prevalence of wives whelping bastards,many men now want DNA testiness as a routine at birth of every child.The child has a basic human right to know his father, and the father hasa right to know his child. I would say go for it.It is also very presumptuous of a woman to tell a man that he has nointerest in knowing his own child. Shame on you. Have you ever heard awoman scream when her kid was mixed up at a hospital? Men feel the sameway about our kid vs. someone else's kid. If this is discovered early, certainly both the mom and the dad will be upset and want to fix the switch. But in cases where this is discovered after some years of raising the child, I would fight to keep the child I raised. And I think most women would do this also. I assume that this might be true of men too though I can't *know* that for sure. Would you dump a child that the two of you adopted at birth if you divorced? There is no biological connection, but if you raised that child, I hope you would still remain his dad.


Choosing to adopt a child is a far different thing than having
fraudulently been cuckolded.

The child of an adoption needs a home. The bastard child of a lying
wife needs his FATHER.

Bob


I agree with paternity testing under some circumstances: when a baby isfirst born if the father has any doubts, wether or not he is married tothe baby's mother; when a mother appears out of nowhere, claiming achild of any age is "his" (whether or not she's asking for $$); if awoman is successful at cutting off access to the man the children haveknown as father, but is still asking for child support; there may beothers. As things stand in California right now, there is a "window ofopportunity" to challenge paternity -- if a man doesn't challenge itwithin that window, he may not later demand tests to prove paternity.(I have a friend who works in legal aid trying to keep people who arefound to be in contempt of court for not paying court ordered childsupport out of jail; she frequently has to explain this particular partof the law to her clients.)The children from "monogamous" married wives turn out to have"surprising" paternity in 10% to 30% of children depending on whichstudy you believe. Even 10% percent bastards is enough to fully justify100% DNA testing at birth before the father's name goes on the birthcertificate.The State of California, Davis and company, are all about collectingmaximum money from men and federal matching funds regardless of whetheror not its the right man. California is a disgrace. No wonder Daviswas impeached.Because the laws were written prior to the availability of DNA testing,as far as I know all states still have the presumptive law that statesthat a man who is married to a woman when she has a baby is presumed tobe that baby's father. Perhaps it is time to change that law, thoughI'm not yet convinced.The laws are changing rapidly. Every child has a basic human right tohis/her father, not some other man. DNA testing ought to be as routineas other medial tests done at birth.However, once a child has known a man as his or her father for a numberof years, it seems the height of cruelty for the man to want to walk outon that child upon discovering that the child's mother was unfaithful;it is not the kid's fault, and the child may need a "real" father morethan ever -- a man who understands that fatherhood neither begins norends with who donated the sperm.mehYes, the longer the woman gets away with her lie the worse she hishurting her kid and his/her real father. That's why DNA testing needsto be routinely done at birth. Go for it. I certainly wouldn't object to that.Bob -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits

dragonlady (mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net) writes: In article <bphf63$r3n$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 20 Nov 2003 01:00:49 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:>Do you complain when Feminists say " *All* men are rapists " ? Yes I certainly do. Post a copy of your letters proving this, with recipients and dates, please. " Talk is cheap. " Ime, very few men are rapists. And, a few women, too... Andre I don't expect you to "prove" that you have taken public positions. I take you at your word. Why am I not afforded the same respect from you?

Because, the difference between us, is that my stated views are NOT
in conflict from my statements.

You, OTOH, have excused misandry, while claiming to be against it.

Thus, your own " have it both ways " positions have created your
contradictions, thus requiring you to show which side you're
really on.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:15:26 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Choosing to adopt a child is a far different thing than havingfraudulently been cuckolded.
The child of an adoption needs a home. The bastard child of a lyingwife needs his FATHER.
Bob

cuckolded
bastard child
lying wife

You've got some serious hate issues you need some help with, Bob.

Nan

toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:59:39 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:You don't seem to comprehend the severity of the great offense a womandoes by paternity fraud. It is very emotionally devastating to both theman who has been defrauded with a bastard child for some years, and tothe father who has never seen HIS child. That's because I believe being a mother or father is more than just the sperm and egg. I agree that the fraud is very real and the man is hurt badly by it, but my interest lies with the child here.

Cow****. Your interest is only in seeing men pay and support a women
and her bastard kid.

If you were interested in the child you would be more interested in
reuniting the child with his/her father.

Once again, suppose you marry and adopt a child.. Is that child no longer yours if you divorce? Do you abandon him or her because s/he is not your biological offspring and you and your ex-wife have divorced?

Once again adoption is not the same situation as a lying slut wife
foisting a bastard on a cuckolded man.

Blaming the nearest available man for her cheating, lying, anddestructive behavior doesn't cut it. SHE is guilty of depriving thechild of his real father, as well as causing the cuckolded man severeemotional problems. She is the one responsible for the problem. Yes, she is responsible in the case of paternity fraud. But making the child suffer for her actions is not the act of someone who is a real dad.

Yes, the child has a real dad out there somewhere. The child will
suffer from her actions until it is reunited with his father.

Let's take a hypothetical case. You find out when the child is 2 years old that s/he is not your biological child. You are obviously hurt and you cannot trust your wife, so you divorce her. Do you really stop loving your two year old even though s/he is not your biological offspring? If so, did you ever love that child at all?

Babe. Women know who their child is. You have no clue and no standing
to ***** about men who are lied to.

The biological part of children is IMPORTANT. A child is a biological
union of his mother and father. The father's child is HALF a product of
the father's flesh, he is "of the father."

If the child is not "of the father" the chances are that the father has
been feeling strange about the child anyway. Someone else's child never
"fits" the way one's own child does.

Meanwhile the child has a real father out there somewhere, and THE CHILD
deserves his/her real father. That is THE CHILD's fundamental human
right. If you would stop focusing on forcing men to pay women even for
someone else's kid and start thinking about the rights of the child to
his or her parent you would not be having such a hard time figuring this
out.

Bob

toto wrote: On 20 Nov 2003 04:29:58 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:I was specific to a lengthy pre-existing parenting relationship with thekid for a reason. Definitely I think any father with doubts about thekid's paternity should request the test, and certainly the defaultposition should be to disallow child support when dad's not really dad.Well, Ex-Gov Davis vetoed that law, and in the UK, they were seriouslylooking at making a law that would make illegal any man's getting a DNAtest done, if there wasn't the permission of the mother... I think that's pretty stupid. I have no objection to making DNA tests for paternity routine or at least available at the request of either party.

It should be done as a matter of legal requirement at birth to prevent
manipulative controlling wives from laying a guilt trip on the husband
and preventing discovery of her whoring. The state records mother and
father on legal documents at birth and has a compelling interest in
establishing who those people are.

Bob


It makes sense that if a man wants one, then it should be given. I am not sure what that says about trust in your relationships, but it seems to me that if you are convinced that it is needed, you should have that option. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits

Nan wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:40:11 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Nan wrote:So while you're busy defending the right of the non-bio father towalk and ranting against the mother, uhm,*where* does the child fit into this equation???Seems you're a little too busy defending and ranting to worry aboutthe innocent short person in all of this.NanWhat part of "She is guilty of depriving the child of his real father"did you fail to read? I didn't fail to read anything. You're still too busy blaming the mother and not caring about the child.The child has a fundamental human right to his/her parents. (Affirmedin the UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child.) Lying to the child andto another man about the paternity defrauds everyone involved. And you're still too busy blaming to care about the child. Nan

No babe. Caring about the child is NOT the same as forcing men to pay
women for their bastards.


Bob

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:25:57 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cow****. Your interest is only in seeing men pay and support a womenand her bastard kid.If you were interested in the child you would be more interested inreuniting the child with his/her father.

You're far too angry a man to have a decent discussion with, but I'll
try anyways.
No, the interest is in the child's well-being of keeping the man
he/she has grown to know and love, in his/her life. Having an adult
that was *supposed* to love them, abandon them, does nothing but teach
the child that love is conditional, and at the whim of the adult that
pulls and withholds that love.
Bob, you can spin all you want, and hate women all you want in order
to make yourself feel better.
But carrying on as a poor victim isn't helping the child in any way.
You claim to care about the child, but you're too busy ranting against
money and being tricked, that it's crystal clear where your only
interests lie.

Nan

In article <3FBCDD05.4070807@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:59:39 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:You don't seem to comprehend the severity of the great offense a womandoes by paternity fraud. It is very emotionally devastating to both theman who has been defrauded with a bastard child for some years, and tothe father who has never seen HIS child. That's because I believe being a mother or father is more than just the sperm and egg. I agree that the fraud is very real and the man is hurt badly by it, but my interest lies with the child here. Cow****. Your interest is only in seeing men pay and support a women and her bastard kid.

Your willingness to use such insulting language about an innocent child
in this situation is telling.
If you were interested in the child you would be more interested in reuniting the child with his/her father. Once again, suppose you marry and adopt a child.. Is that child no longer yours if you divorce? Do you abandon him or her because s/he is not your biological offspring and you and your ex-wife have divorced? Once again adoption is not the same situation as a lying slut wife foisting a bastard on a cuckolded man.Blaming the nearest available man for her cheating, lying, anddestructive behavior doesn't cut it. SHE is guilty of depriving thechild of his real father, as well as causing the cuckolded man severeemotional problems. She is the one responsible for the problem. Yes, she is responsible in the case of paternity fraud. But making the child suffer for her actions is not the act of someone who is a real dad. Yes, the child has a real dad out there somewhere. The child will suffer from her actions until it is reunited with his father.

My father was born in a home for unwed mothers. When his mother later
married, her husband refused to let my father live with them, because,
he said, he wasn't going to raise "some other man's bastard."

My father may have been hurt by never knowing who his bio-dad was,
though when he was older and Grandma offered to tell him, he decided
he'd rather not know.

He was DEFINATELY hurt -- badly -- by being rejected so thoroughly by a
man he knew.

1 - Not all men WANT to be reunited with a child they sired.
2 - Regardless of what happens with the bio-dad, it is definately
hurtful to be rejected by the man who you thought was your father, and
who claimed to love you. I can't imagine the pain of being told that
that love was conditional upon biological relatedness. Let's take a hypothetical case. You find out when the child is 2 years old that s/he is not your biological child. You are obviously hurt and you cannot trust your wife, so you divorce her. Do you really stop loving your two year old even though s/he is not your biological offspring? If so, did you ever love that child at all? Babe. Women know who their child is. You have no clue and no standing to ***** about men who are lied to. The biological part of children is IMPORTANT. A child is a biological union of his mother and father. The father's child is HALF a product of the father's flesh, he is "of the father." If the child is not "of the father" the chances are that the father has been feeling strange about the child anyway. Someone else's child never "fits" the way one's own child does.

I know adoptive families who would find this statement quite insulting.

I have two male relatives raising children who are not theirs
biologically, alongside children who are. According to THEM, they don't
feel any differently about the children.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:29:16 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nan wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:40:11 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Nan wrote:>So while you're busy defending the right of the non-bio father to>walk and ranting against the mother, uhm,>*where* does the child fit into this equation???>Seems you're a little too busy defending and ranting to worry about>the innocent short person in all of this.>>NanWhat part of "She is guilty of depriving the child of his real father"did you fail to read? I didn't fail to read anything. You're still too busy blaming the mother and not caring about the child.The child has a fundamental human right to his/her parents. (Affirmedin the UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child.) Lying to the child andto another man about the paternity defrauds everyone involved. And you're still too busy blaming to care about the child. NanNo babe. Caring about the child is NOT the same as forcing men to paywomen for their bastards.Bob

Bob, don't insult me by calling me 'babe'. I realize you despise
women but there is no need to insult every one of us.
You claim to care about a child yet you're willing to disappear out of
a young life that you've been a part of.
Gee, that makes all kinds of sense for everyone involved.
Truth be told, you've only got your own interests in mind.

Nan

Renee (rshiflet@hotmail.com) writes: What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and "deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery. Bob What system would you like to see in place of child support?

At the very least, the same legal principle should be applied to it, as
are aplied to all other legallly enforceable contracts... The
accountability about how the money is used, and legal sanctions for MS-
using said monies.
Maybe there could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent (notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts for everything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check for half of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodial parent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodial parent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.

Many NCPs already know that they're being ripped off wrt CS payments.

Heres a couple of examples. Take housing costs. I'll use numbers
that work in my urban area.

Couple separates. One kid, mommy gets custody ( Happens over 84% of
the time, and doesn't that number tell you something about women
saying " give us equal rights ", until it means they might... lose ),
bpth adults get apartments, and dad pays CS.

Now, she'll need a two bedroom, and he, a one. The cost difference
between them, in comparable buildings, won't be 50%, IOW, a reasonable
one will cost about $750 and the two, $900.

Now, CS will apportion out the mom's costs as 50% of the rent for the
child. Based on two people living there, so Dad's CS will cover $225
for his " 50% " of the child's housing cost.

That means that Mom pays $900-$225=$675 from her pocket.

But, if she didn't have a kid, and were living in the one bedroom,
she'd be paying $750 for her place. So, Dad's being forced to pay
" 50% " really covers *100%* of the cost of housing the child
( Which is $900-$750=$150 ), *plus* subsidising Mom's place to
the tune of $75.

Were CS really using non-Enron accounting practices, the CS sum
for housing the child would be, $900-$750=$150, his real 50%
then being $75, not $225.
There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much less than the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess there would need to be some sort of limits or guidelines.

A case a couple of years ago, that went to the Canadian Supreme Court,
went as follows: Couple splits, both get own places, mom gets the
two daughters. Both earn about $60,000 a year. SEveral years go by.
Dad's business takes off, his income goes to six digits, and net
worth to seven.

Mom now demands $60,000 CS per year, *per daughter*. Her laywer's
comment: " Well, he has it... ". Note: Canadian CS is *tax-free*
to the recipient, and the taxes on it, are paid by the *person
paying CS*.

So, she still makes $60,000, *gross*, but wants $120,000, *net*.

She got it... Now, tell me that all that windfall loot isn't going
to " raise her standard of living "...

Uh huh. Riigghhttt ( Dr. Evil voice ).
By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn't personally affect me.

Then, learn what goes on, out of your eye's own views...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"edwal" <edwalito@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4ea6638.0311200708.7c4df200@posting.google.c om... drawnai@hotmail.com (Ian) wrote in message
news:<d33ce629.0311190106.a03cc44@posting.google.com>... Show me a miracle. Show me that something is "not" a miracle.

Generally, I hold with your points, Edwal, however the above one is silly.
Claiming something is a miracle is an extraordinary claim and requires
extraordinary proof.



--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

In article <bpikc1014b5@drn.newsguy.com>,
Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
In article <f6980f4e.0311200351.5374fb1b@posting.google.com>, Renee says... What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and "deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery. Bob What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybethere could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent(notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts foreverything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check forhalf of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodialparent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodialparent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much lessthan the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess therewould need to be some sort of limits or guidelines. By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn'tpersonally affect me.Renee This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The only drawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement would have to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for the children. I'd like to see responses to this idea. Banty

The biggest problem I see is seperating out what is "child care costs"
from the expenses of running a household.

We have 3 kids, and rent a 4 bedroom house. Does that mean 3/4 of our
rent is a direct expense of raising our kids? Is there some other
formula we could use to identify this? What percentage of our utility
bill, phone bill, etc.? I have a larger car than if I were single and
had no children. What percentage of my car expenses can be attributed
to child care costs?

Groceries are even harder, unless you wanted me to start keeping "my"
food seperate from "the kids'" food -- seperate cabinets, seperate
meals, etc.

I could identify clothing costs, and direct school expenses, medical
expenses, and expenses for things like conferences and movies. Other
than that, it sounds like a record keeping nightmare!

Then there would come the question of "reasonableness". If I am buying
the most expensive groceries around and taking the kids out to 4 star
restauraunts regularly, should their other parent be expected to foot
half the bill for those choices? What if *I* decide that they really
need at least 10 pairs of high end designer jeans? But what if that was
the lifestyle they were used to before the divorce, and the circles we
travel in live like that -- does it then become OK?

The current system may well be broken. But I don't think trying to
record and seperate out "child care costs" is the solution.

Part of the solution, imho, is to return to a time when people took
their marriage vows more seriously, at least once they have kids (and
certainly when they are CREATING said kids!). I guess I'm just old
fashioned that way.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article <3FBCD5AE.6050009@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Banty wrote: In article <3FBC4B5D.3000805@hotmail.com>, Bob says...
Its like Bob's wife was saying tonight at dinner. She gets so fed upwith imbeciles who claim that "violence never solves anything." Thetruth is that violence has been the ultimate solution to most ofhistories major changes and solutions. So, putting this and your last post together, you forsee a 'next change' to a world run by men, brought about by violence? BantyMilquetoast is for children. Deal with it.Bob

So, in summary, you *do* forsee a 'next change' to a world run by men, to be
brought about by violence.

Another question - do you plan to participate in this violence?

Banty

Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:15:26 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Choosing to adopt a child is a far different thing than havingfraudulently been cuckolded.The child of an adoption needs a home. The bastard child of a lyingwife needs his FATHER.Bob cuckolded bastard child lying wife You've got some serious hate issues you need some help with, Bob. Nan

Your amateur psychology attempt at ad-hominem flames fails toots.

Feminist definition: "seek professional help" --> adj. A man who
refuses to kowtow to feminism. Also "consult a psychiatrist." Usually
used as an ad-hominem attack. Translation: "You're right on but I won't
admit it." See "sick."


Bob

In article <3FBCDA8E.20906@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:08:43 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Would you dump a child that the two of you adopted at birth if you divorced? There is no biological connection, but if you raised that child, I hope you would still remain his dad. Choosing to adopt a child is a far different thing than having fraudulently been cuckolded. The child of an adoption needs a home. The bastard child of a lying wife needs his FATHER. Bob

I agree with that.

Our difference is that *I* don't see the guy who donated his sperm and
then disappeared as much of a FATHER.

The FATHER is the guy who lived with that child and claimed to love him
or her.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:59:37 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:15:26 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Choosing to adopt a child is a far different thing than havingfraudulently been cuckolded.The child of an adoption needs a home. The bastard child of a lyingwife needs his FATHER.Bob cuckolded bastard child lying wife You've got some serious hate issues you need some help with, Bob. NanYour amateur psychology attempt at ad-hominem flames fails toots.

Sorry, but I wasn't "attempting" anything. Merely pointing out your
continued and pervasive hatred.
Feminist definition: "seek professional help" --> adj. A man whorefuses to kowtow to feminism. Also "consult a psychiatrist." Usuallyused as an ad-hominem attack. Translation: "You're right on but I won'tadmit it." See "sick."

Interesting one-sided definition. Did you write it?

Nan

In article <3FBCD9DA.3050302@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
toto wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:32:02 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
The historical reason why birth control research focused on women, and ONLY on women for half a century is because NOBODY CARED about men. Your continual misandrist prejudice is the way women think. In between claiming not to hate men, you continually repeat old tired feminist misandrist propaganda.

What I've read from the (mainly male) doctors who did the research is
that the reason oral contraception was worked on for women and not for
men is because the monthly cycle of hormones in women was easier to
disrupt than figuring out how to disrupt the creation of sperm in men.
This makes sense to me. In men, the creation of sperm is continuous, so
any hormonal interruption would have to be continuous.

As a woman who could not take birth control pills, I'd have loved it if
there had been an oral contraceptive for men; however, it's my
understanding that the older attempts usually had some nasty side
effects -- like total loss of libido, or even total impotence, which
kind of defeats the purpose!
Courts were doing exactly the same thing in the 1950s when "The Pill" was first developed. Those feminist hate lies don't fly here Toots. Today the beginnings of a men's movement are making enough noise so that some minimal research is being spent on developing a contraceptive pills for men.

Actually, the research is beyond "minimal". Check out the article at
http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/131003malepill.
html

According to this article, they are already in clinical trials and an
oral male birth control pill could be commercially available in the not
too distant future!

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:25:57 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Cow****. Your interest is only in seeing men pay and support a womenand her bastard kid.If you were interested in the child you would be more interested inreuniting the child with his/her father. You're far too angry a man to have a decent discussion with, but I'll try anyways.

A decent discussion isn't composed of old tired feminist hate dogma and
your continual ad-hominem flames. You wouldn't know a decent discussion
if it hit you over the head with a 2x4.

No, the interest is in the child's well-being of keeping the man he/she has grown to know and love, in his/her life. Having an adult that was *supposed* to love them, abandon them, does nothing but teach the child that love is conditional, and at the whim of the adult that pulls and withholds that love.

And who's fault is that? If mom had any care about the welfare of the
child she wouldn't have tried to foist it off on some other man. SHE
needs to return the child to his/her own father as soon as possible to
minimize the damage SHE has done.

Bob, you can spin all you want, and hate women all you want in order to make yourself feel better.

Babe, your misandry is palpable.

Feminist definition: "Hates women" --> n. someone winning a debate
with a feminist. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.

But carrying on as a poor victim isn't helping the child in any way.

Taking care of the child is bringing him/her to his/her father, and a
quickly as possible. Every child has a fundamental human right to
his/her father. Too bad you care only for the woman's meal ticket and
not about the basic rights of the child.

You claim to care about the child, but you're too busy ranting against money and being tricked, that it's crystal clear where your only interests lie. Nan

Bob's only interest lies with the child, not with your greedy feminist
crap about "child support" from any man you can force or lie into
paying. Every child has a fundamental human right to his/her father.
Too bad you care only for the woman's meal ticket and not about the
basic rights of the child.


Bob

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:08:19 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:29:16 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Nan wrote:>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:40:11 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>Nan wrote:>>>>>So while you're busy defending the right of the non-bio father to>>>walk and ranting against the mother, uhm,>>>*where* does the child fit into this equation???>>>Seems you're a little too busy defending and ranting to worry about>>>the innocent short person in all of this.>>>>>>Nan>>>>What part of "She is guilty of depriving the child of his real father">>did you fail to read?>>>I didn't fail to read anything. You're still too busy blaming the>mother and not caring about the child.>>>>>The child has a fundamental human right to his/her parents. (Affirmed>>in the UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child.) Lying to the child and>>to another man about the paternity defrauds everyone involved.>>>And you're still too busy blaming to care about the child.>>Nan>No babe. Caring about the child is NOT the same as forcing men to paywomen for their bastards.Bob Bob, don't insult me by calling me 'babe'. I realize you despise women but there is no need to insult every one of us.You realize nothing of the sort babe. That ad-hominem is an old femroidhate tactic. It don't fly here.Feminist definition: "Misogynist" --> n. someone winning a debate witha feminist. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.

You spend far too much time with your comrades that also hate women.
Please, I asked you not to refer to me as 'babe'.
If you cannot manage to respect that, then nothing you continue to say
holds any worth for me, as a conversation.
The people in this group are *trying* to hold a decent conversation
with you, and so far all you've managed to do is attack, spew
vitriolic comments and be insulting.
Can you please manage to be respectful?

Nan

dragonlady wrote: In article <3FBCDD05.4070807@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:toto wrote:On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:59:39 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>You don't seem to comprehend the severity of the great offense a woman>does by paternity fraud. It is very emotionally devastating to both the>man who has been defrauded with a bastard child for some years, and to>the father who has never seen HIS child.>That's because I believe being a mother or father is more than justthe sperm and egg.I agree that the fraud is very real and the man is hurt badly by it,but my interest lies with the child here.Cow****. Your interest is only in seeing men pay and support a womenand her bastard kid. Your willingness to use such insulting language about an innocent child in this situation is telling.If you were interested in the child you would be more interested inreuniting the child with his/her father.Once again, suppose you marry and adopt a child.. Is that childno longer yours if you divorce? Do you abandon him or her becauses/he is not your biological offspring and you and your ex-wife havedivorced?Once again adoption is not the same situation as a lying slut wifefoisting a bastard on a cuckolded man.>Blaming the nearest available man for her cheating, lying, and>destructive behavior doesn't cut it. SHE is guilty of depriving the>child of his real father, as well as causing the cuckolded man severe>emotional problems. She is the one responsible for the problem.Yes, she is responsible in the case of paternity fraud. But makingthe child suffer for her actions is not the act of someone who isa real dad.Yes, the child has a real dad out there somewhere. The child willsuffer from her actions until it is reunited with his father. My father was born in a home for unwed mothers. When his mother later married, her husband refused to let my father live with them, because, he said, he wasn't going to raise "some other man's bastard." My father may have been hurt by never knowing who his bio-dad was, though when he was older and Grandma offered to tell him, he decided he'd rather not know. He was DEFINATELY hurt -- badly -- by being rejected so thoroughly by a man he knew. 1 - Not all men WANT to be reunited with a child they sired. 2 - Regardless of what happens with the bio-dad, it is definately hurtful to be rejected by the man who you thought was your father, and who claimed to love you. I can't imagine the pain of being told that that love was conditional upon biological relatedness.


You're not the bio-dad either. If it bothers YOU so much why don't YOU
raise the kids.

What you want is for women to tell men what to do and force men to raise
their bastards. Sorry toots, life doesn't work that way.

Women are responsible. Blaming the nearest available man, as you have
just done, is a classic femroid hate tactic. It tries to shift
responsibility from the woman who is actually responsible.

Your grandmother, not the nice guy she married, is the one responsible
for the bastard she whelped and how he was raised.

Blaming the nearest available man is another hate tactic that doesn't
work any more, at least not around here.


Let's take a hypothetical case. You find out when the child is2 years old that s/he is not your biological child. You are obviouslyhurt and you cannot trust your wife, so you divorce her. Do youreally stop loving your two year old even though s/he is not yourbiological offspring? If so, did you ever love that child at all?Babe. Women know who their child is. You have no clue and no standingto ***** about men who are lied to.The biological part of children is IMPORTANT. A child is a biologicalunion of his mother and father. The father's child is HALF a product ofthe father's flesh, he is "of the father."If the child is not "of the father" the chances are that the father hasbeen feeling strange about the child anyway. Someone else's child never"fits" the way one's own child does. I know adoptive families who would find this statement quite insulting.

Twist, turn, all you like. Its not a woman's place to tell MEN how to
feel about our children. That is VERY insulting.

I have two male relatives raising children who are not theirs biologically, alongside children who are. According to THEM, they don't feel any differently about the children. meh

Go read "Cinderella" again.

Bob

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:14:55 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Babe,

I've asked you to be respectful several times, Bob.
Taking care of the child is bringing him/her to his/her father, and aquickly as possible. Every child has a fundamental human right tohis/her father. Too bad you care only for the woman's meal ticket andnot about the basic rights of the child.

No, you're making incorrect assumptions about me, based on your tunnel
vision.
Every child as a right to *a* father. The bio father isn't
necessarily the best one for the job, just because he's the bio-dad.
How hard is it for you to understand that having a consistent, loving
parent in the child's life is the important issue??

Bob's only interest lies with the child, not with your greedy feministcrap about "child support" from any man you can force or lie intopaying. Every child has a fundamental human right to his/her father.Too bad you care only for the woman's meal ticket and not about thebasic rights of the child.

Yeah, you keep repeating that. *Nowhere* in any of my posts will you
find the subject of child support.
My concern is strictly for the emotional well-being of the child. I'm
sorry that doesn't play into your narrow view of the world.

Nan

In article <17qprvcsr53e50jf9q4oh731nosck3gkum@4ax.com>, Nan says...On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:08:19 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Feminist definition: "Misogynist" --> n. someone winning a debate witha feminist. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.You spend far too much time with your comrades that also hate women.Please, I asked you not to refer to me as 'babe'.If you cannot manage to respect that, then nothing you continue to sayholds any worth for me, as a conversation.The people in this group are *trying* to hold a decent conversationwith you, and so far all you've managed to do is attack, spewvitriolic comments and be insulting.Can you please manage to be respectful?Nan

Bob wants a world dominated by men, to be brought about by violence.

Somehow I don't think his being respectful in a USENET discussion is in the
cards.

Banty

In article <3FBCE87F.4000501@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Bob's only interest lies with the child, not with your greedy feminist crap about "child support" from any man you can force or lie into paying. Every child has a fundamental human right to his/her father. Too bad you care only for the woman's meal ticket and not about the basic rights of the child.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think should happen when (as will
happen at least some of the time) the bio-dad ALSO rejects the child --
wants nothing to do with the child? Since it is impossible to force
someone to become a FATHER, the child is left without one.

Should the bio-father be forced to provide financial support? Should
the bio-father be forced to contact with the child?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Banty wrote: In article <f6980f4e.0311200351.5374fb1b@posting.google.com>, Renee says...What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in thegovernment now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feministsocial experiment called "child support" is eradicated before anothermillion children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men whoare angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for herhate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack menwho support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.Bob What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybethere could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent(notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts foreverything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check forhalf of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodialparent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodialparent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much lessthan the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess therewould need to be some sort of limits or guidelines. By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn'tpersonally affect me.Renee This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The only drawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement would have to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for the children. I'd like to see responses to this idea. Banty


Yep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty.
Who'da thought. '-)

Bob

In article <3FBCF21F.7090903@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Banty wrote: In article <f6980f4e.0311200351.5374fb1b@posting.google.com>, Renee says...>What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the>government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist>social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another>million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who>are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and>"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her>hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men>who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.>>Bob What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybethere could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent(notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts foreverything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check forhalf of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodialparent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodialparent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much lessthan the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess therewould need to be some sort of limits or guidelines. By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn'tpersonally affect me.Renee This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The only drawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement would have to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for the children. I'd like to see responses to this idea. Banty Yep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty. Who'da thought. '-) Bob

i've read through what Banty said, and what Renee suggested, and I can't
for the life of me find a single spot where they referred to gender.

Unless YOU are assuming that under a new system the woman would always
be the custodial parent and the man would always be the one providing
financial support? That's certainly not what *I* would want to see, nor
is it something I've seen either Banty or Renee support.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote: In article <bpikc1014b5@drn.newsguy.com>, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote:In article <f6980f4e.0311200351.5374fb1b@posting.google.com>, Renee says...>What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the>government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist>social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another>million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who>are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and>"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her>hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men>who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.>>Bob What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybethere could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent(notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts foreverything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check forhalf of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodialparent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodialparent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much lessthan the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess therewould need to be some sort of limits or guidelines. By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn'tpersonally affect me.ReneeThis makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. Theonlydrawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvementwouldhave to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being availableforthe children.I'd like to see responses to this idea.Banty The biggest problem I see is seperating out what is "child care costs" from the expenses of running a household. We have 3 kids, and rent a 4 bedroom house. Does that mean 3/4 of our rent is a direct expense of raising our kids? Is there some other formula we could use to identify this? What percentage of our utility bill, phone bill, etc.? I have a larger car than if I were single and had no children. What percentage of my car expenses can be attributed to child care costs? Groceries are even harder, unless you wanted me to start keeping "my" food seperate from "the kids'" food -- seperate cabinets, seperate meals, etc. I could identify clothing costs, and direct school expenses, medical expenses, and expenses for things like conferences and movies. Other than that, it sounds like a record keeping nightmare! Then there would come the question of "reasonableness". If I am buying the most expensive groceries around and taking the kids out to 4 star restauraunts regularly, should their other parent be expected to foot half the bill for those choices? What if *I* decide that they really need at least 10 pairs of high end designer jeans? But what if that was the lifestyle they were used to before the divorce, and the circles we travel in live like that -- does it then become OK? The current system may well be broken. But I don't think trying to record and seperate out "child care costs" is the solution. Part of the solution, imho, is to return to a time when people took their marriage vows more seriously, at least once they have kids (and certainly when they are CREATING said kids!). I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. meh


Bob is very old fashioned. For some millions of years women brought the
child to his father if she wanted him to support the child. Until
feminist creation of so-called "absentee child support" that's what
women have always done. Today's young women have been raised in the
radical feminist social experiment and think that supporting a child
means men paying women -- the goal of the feminist experiment.

The radical feminist experiment has destroyed millions of families and
hurt hundreds of millions of children during the feminist century. It
needs to be dismantled as quickly as possible. Using children as pawns
to extort money from men is an abomination that must be ended.

Bob

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:55:59 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Banty wrote:
This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The only drawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement would have to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for the children. I'd like to see responses to this idea. BantyYep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty.Who'da thought. '-)Bob

You certainly do see things that just don't exist, don't you?
Nowhere in any of Banty's posts has she mentioned gender of payor and
payee.
You certainly have, though.

Nan

dragonlady wrote: In article <3FBCDA8E.20906@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:toto wrote:On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:08:43 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Would you dump a child that the two of you adopted at birth ifyou divorced? There is no biological connection, but if you raisedthat child, I hope you would still remain his dad.Choosing to adopt a child is a far different thing than havingfraudulently been cuckolded.The child of an adoption needs a home. The bastard child of a lyingwife needs his FATHER.Bob I agree with that. Our difference is that *I* don't see the guy who donated his sperm and then disappeared as much of a FATHER. The FATHER is the guy who lived with that child and claimed to love him or her.


You're really down on men. Go read Cinderella again.

Its not about the money toots. Its about our children.

Bob

dragonlady wrote: In article <3FBCD9DA.3050302@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:toto wrote:On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:32:02 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:The historical reason why birth control research focused on women, andONLY on women for half a century is because NOBODY CARED about men.Your continual misandrist prejudice is the way women think. In betweenclaiming not to hate men, you continually repeat old tired feministmisandrist propaganda. What I've read from the (mainly male) doctors who did the research is that the reason oral contraception was worked on for women and not for men is because the monthly cycle of hormones in women was easier to disrupt than figuring out how to disrupt the creation of sperm in men. This makes sense to me. In men, the creation of sperm is continuous, so any hormonal interruption would have to be continuous.

The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.

How many times do I have to repeat that before you reply with anything
other than the same old lying feminist hate crap.


The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.

The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.

The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.

The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.

The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.

The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.


Every other post you're claiming not to be a man hating feminist, and
the ones in-between you're repeating the same old tired feminist hate
crap. Its obvious where you really are coming from.

As a woman who could not take birth control pills, I'd have loved it if there had been an oral contraceptive for men; however, it's my understanding that the older attempts usually had some nasty side effects -- like total loss of libido, or even total impotence, which kind of defeats the purpose!Courts were doing exactly the same thing in the 1950s when "The Pill"was first developed. Those feminist hate lies don't fly here Toots.Today the beginnings of a men's movement are making enough noise so thatsome minimal research is being spent on developing a contraceptive pillsfor men. Actually, the research is beyond "minimal". Check out the article at http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/131003malepill. html

The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.


Compared to the huge research budgets for women's research it's minimal,
if that. More femroid nonsense.


According to this article, they are already in clinical trials and an oral male birth control pill could be commercially available in the not too distant future! meh

The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.


Compared to the massive budgets spent on female oriented research its
almost vanishing. The only clinical trials that have been reported on
men's health discussions are in Australia, half way round the world from
the USA. Where does that leave American men? How many more decades
will it take? How many more men will suffer?

One more time, you obvously haven't even begun to comprehend.
The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.



Bob

On 20 Nov 2003 08:42:43 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
In article <17qprvcsr53e50jf9q4oh731nosck3gkum@4ax.com>, Nan says...On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:08:19 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Feminist definition: "Misogynist" --> n. someone winning a debate witha feminist. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.You spend far too much time with your comrades that also hate women.Please, I asked you not to refer to me as 'babe'.If you cannot manage to respect that, then nothing you continue to sayholds any worth for me, as a conversation.The people in this group are *trying* to hold a decent conversationwith you, and so far all you've managed to do is attack, spewvitriolic comments and be insulting.Can you please manage to be respectful?NanBob wants a world dominated by men, to be brought about by violence.Somehow I don't think his being respectful in a USENET discussion is in thecards.Banty

I suspect you're correct. Several people have tried to be nice and
have a real conversation. I don't believe Bob is capable.
Too bad, as I have great sympathy for the issue that some men face,
having a friend who has gone through it.
But men like Bob do nothing to further the cause in a positive manner.

Nan

In article <n5tprvco8kku3gch9iocpbkvcdbbquh60e@4ax.com>, Nan says...On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:55:59 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Banty wrote:This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The onlydrawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement wouldhave to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for the children. I'd like to see responses to this idea. BantyYep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty.Who'da thought. '-)BobYou certainly do see things that just don't exist, don't you?Nowhere in any of Banty's posts has she mentioned gender of payor andpayee.You certainly have, though.Nan

This is the sort of thing that give me the impression we're talking to
generated-response 'bots :-)

There was a discussion on the moderated misc.kids 'group fairly recently with a
non-custodial mother who was upset at what her perception was of how the child
support payments she was sending to the father was being spent. She complained
of the new wife's ciggies, reported that her teen daughter had told her that
they weren't getting enough clothes, wondered about her ex's and his new bride's
nearly-no-housing cost situation and how that should impact support payments.
All of that, at least the first two things, would be addressed by the third
party arrangement. This isn't a gender thing.

Banty

Nan wrote: Can you please manage to be respectful? Nan

LOL. You got me to laughing so hard I almost fell off the chair. After
a half dozen flame posts you come back with that. ROFLMAO!!!!


Bob

Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:14:55 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: I've asked you to be respectful several times, Bob.


Nope, all you've done is post flames.

Bob

In article <mehouck-F20E98.08582220112003@news.SF.sbcglobal.net>, dragonlady
says...In article <3FBCF21F.7090903@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>wrote: Banty wrote: In article <f6980f4e.0311200351.5374fb1b@posting.google.com>, Renee says...>>What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the>>government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist>>social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another>>million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who>>are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and>>"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her>>hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men>>who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.>>>>Bob>> What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybe>there could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent>(notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts for>everything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check for>half of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodial>parent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodial>parent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.>There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much less>than the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess there>would need to be some sort of limits or guidelines.>> By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn't>personally affect me.>>Renee This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The only drawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement would have to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for the children. I'd like to see responses to this idea. Banty Yep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty. Who'da thought. '-) Bobi've read through what Banty said, and what Renee suggested, and I can'tfor the life of me find a single spot where they referred to gender.Unless YOU are assuming that under a new system the woman would alwaysbe the custodial parent and the man would always be the one providingfinancial support? That's certainly not what *I* would want to see, noris it something I've seen either Banty or Renee support.

Right. Furthermore, it isn't the present situation.

Banty

In article <3FBCF822.70602@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:14:55 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: I've asked you to be respectful several times, Bob. Nope, all you've done is post flames. Bob

Bob accusing other people of posting flames. Now THAT'S funny.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article <3FBCF21F.7090903@hotmail.com>, Bob says...Banty wrote: In article <f6980f4e.0311200351.5374fb1b@posting.google.com>, Renee says...>What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the>government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist>social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another>million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who>are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and>"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her>hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men>who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.>>Bob What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybethere could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent(notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts foreverything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check forhalf of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodialparent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodialparent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much lessthan the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess therewould need to be some sort of limits or guidelines. By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn'tpersonally affect me.ReneeThis makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The onlydrawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement wouldhave to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for the children. I'd like to see responses to this idea. BantyYep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty.Who'da thought. '-)Bob


I've looked at this backwards and forwards, tested it for disappearing ink,
consulted several code-breakers, but still I don't see a response to this idea.

Perhaps Bob (or the Bob 'Bot) isn't quite articulate enough to present
discernable content.

Banty

Nan wrote: Every child as a right to *a* father. The bio father isn't necessarily the best one for the job, just because he's the bio-dad. How hard is it for you to understand that having a consistent, loving parent in the child's life is the important issue??

No babe. Men are not interchangeable toys like your hair curlers.
Every child has a fundamental human right to HIS father. Go read the UN
International Declaration on the Rights of a Child. Whether HIS father
is good or bad its still HIS father, part of HIS flesh, and that is more
important than female tinker toy "father figure" lies and doubletalk.


Bob's only interest lies with the child, not with your greedy feministcrap about "child support" from any man you can force or lie intopaying. Every child has a fundamental human right to his/her father.Too bad you care only for the woman's meal ticket and not about thebasic rights of the child. Yeah, you keep repeating that. *Nowhere* in any of my posts will you find the subject of child support. My concern is strictly for the emotional well-being of the child. I'm sorry that doesn't play into your narrow view of the world. Nan

If you want to be perceived as such then you should refrain from
repeating feminist language commonly used in demands for payments.

The emotional well being of the child, and HIS basic human rights, are
served when he is brought to HIS father for love and support. His
emotional well being and human rights are destroyed when mom plays
tinker toy "father figure" games with his life.

Bob

In article <3FBCF753.9020102@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
dragonlady wrote: In article <3FBCD9DA.3050302@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>

What I've read from the (mainly male) doctors who did the research is that the reason oral contraception was worked on for women and not for men is because the monthly cycle of hormones in women was easier to disrupt than figuring out how to disrupt the creation of sperm in men. This makes sense to me. In men, the creation of sperm is continuous, so any hormonal interruption would have to be continuous. The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.

Why is that a lie? Or feminist, for that matter? The researchers said
that it was easier to disrupt the female system -- that's a fact.
Whether they were right or not, I can't say -- I'm not a medical
researcher. However, their claims make sense to me. Does it NOT make
sense to you that it was easier to disrupt the monthly cycle for women
than to disrupt the continuous production of sperm in men?

We are not talking about discrimination here, but about biology.

Every other post you're claiming not to be a man hating feminist, and the ones in-between you're repeating the same old tired feminist hate crap. Its obvious where you really are coming from.

I have never claimed to be a "man hating feminist". Though you keep
claiming I am, and apparently your intuition about me is good enough for
you.

Today the beginnings of a men's movement are making enough noise so thatsome minimal research is being spent on developing a contraceptive pillsfor men. Actually, the research is beyond "minimal". Check out the article at http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/131003malepill. html The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.

?????

The research is making progress. Like you, I'd like to see more money
going into it, and some of the research being done on this side of the
ocean.

Did you actually READ the article? I didn't see anything that could be
remotely considered "lying feminist hate crap". I just thought you
might be interested in what progress IS being made.

Is it enough? No.

Is there enough money being spent on it? Probably not.

Should there be research in the USA? Yes

However, being in clinical trials IS progress.

One more time, you obvously haven't even begun to comprehend. The same old lying feminist hate crap doesn't get it here babe.
Telling you about what research IS being done is "lying feminist hate
crap"?

I suppose if I were to tell you the sky was blue, you'd accuse me of
"lying feminist hate crap", too.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:21:38 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:14:55 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: I've asked you to be respectful several times, Bob.Nope, all you've done is post flames.Bob

Pointing out your vitriol is flaming?
Interesting.
I suggest you educate yourself on that, as well as look in your
mirror.
Every single one of your posts has contained hateful comments.

Nan

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:31:52 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nan wrote: Every child as a right to *a* father. The bio father isn't necessarily the best one for the job, just because he's the bio-dad. How hard is it for you to understand that having a consistent, loving parent in the child's life is the important issue??No babe.

Continued insults do nothing to endear anyone to your cause.
Men are not interchangeable toys like your hair curlers.

Again, continued insults do nothing to endear anyone to your cause.

Nobody in this thread has claimed fathers are "interchangeable",
except you.
What *has* been said is the emotional well-being of the child is more
important than the adults that can't be bothered to remove their heads
from their behinds.

Bob's only interest lies with the child, not with your greedy feministcrap about "child support" from any man you can force or lie intopaying. Every child has a fundamental human right to his/her father.Too bad you care only for the woman's meal ticket and not about thebasic rights of the child. Yeah, you keep repeating that. *Nowhere* in any of my posts will you find the subject of child support. My concern is strictly for the emotional well-being of the child. I'm sorry that doesn't play into your narrow view of the world. NanIf you want to be perceived as such then you should refrain fromrepeating feminist language commonly used in demands for payments.

I'm not interested in your perception of language the courts use.
The emotional well being of the child, and HIS basic human rights, areserved when he is brought to HIS father for love and support. Hisemotional well being and human rights are destroyed when mom playstinker toy "father figure" games with his life.

Wrong. The emotional well-being of the child and his/her basic human
rights are served when he/she is continued to be cared for by the
person in his/her life in an effort to maintain continuity for the
child, not to cater to the whims of the father who decides to pull the
plug on the relationship.
That the mother lied is just as bad as the father hitting the dirt and
abandoning the child.
Until you are able to understand and accept responsibility in this
issue, all you will manage to do is live in your own little world in
which women are evil.

Nan, done with this useless conversation

dragonlady wrote: In article <3FBCE87F.4000501@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Bob's only interest lies with the child, not with your greedy feministcrap about "child support" from any man you can force or lie intopaying. Every child has a fundamental human right to his/her father.Too bad you care only for the woman's meal ticket and not about thebasic rights of the child. Just out of curiosity, what do you think should happen when (as will happen at least some of the time) the bio-dad ALSO rejects the child -- wants nothing to do with the child? Since it is impossible to force someone to become a FATHER, the child is left without one.


Your negative stereotypes of fathers are noted.

Fathers ought to have the SAME rights and responsibilities as women.

Note we don't have "Baby abandonment" laws because fathers were dumping
so many kids into dumpsters.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Should the bio-father be forced to provide financial support?

There you are jumping right to Men-pay, women get paid. Why is that
what women always get around to, using children as pawns to extort money
from men?

Why is it that for women, it's always about the money?
Should the bio-father be forced to contact with the child? meh

Is the mother forced to contact with the child? Or can she place it for
adoption, abandon it on the steps of the nearest fire station, or have
had it aborted in the first place?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Why does it always come down to some female wanting men to pay women?

Bob

dragonlady wrote: In article <3FBCF21F.7090903@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Banty wrote:In article <f6980f4e.0311200351.5374fb1b@posting.google.com>, Renee says...>>What we need is MORE anger and bitterness until changes are made in the>>government now dominated by feminist policy and the radical feminist>>social experiment called "child support" is eradicated before another>>million children are hurt. People like Dorothy complain about men who>>are angry while she supports the so-called "child support" slavery and>>"deadbeat dads." Shame on her and her sisters who blame men for her>>hate. Shame on all who support slavery. Shame on those who attack men>>who support equality, stand up for children, and oppose slavery.>>>>Bob>> What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybe>there could be an account held by a third party. The custodial parent>(notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts for>everything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check for>half of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodial>parent isn't spending the money on him/herself. The non-custodial>parent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs.>There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much less>than the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess there>would need to be some sort of limits or guidelines.>>By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn't>personally affect me.>>ReneeThis makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. Theonlydrawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvementwouldhave to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being availableforthe children.I'd like to see responses to this idea.BantyYep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty.Who'da thought. '-)Bob i've read through what Banty said, and what Renee suggested, and I can't for the life of me find a single spot where they referred to gender.


Feminist double talk might work on misc.kids, but the MEN on soc.men
have heard it too many times before. Sorry babe. It don't fly here.


Unless YOU are assuming that under a new system the woman would always be the custodial parent and the man would always be the one providing financial support? That's certainly not what *I* would want to see, nor is it something I've seen either Banty or Renee support. meh



It's not about the money babe. Its about taking care of the children.

Bob

In article <5cvprv0boi4u9li5mqrnd3gjvfjc3lnaeq@4ax.com>, Nan says...On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:31:52 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Nan wrote: Every child as a right to *a* father. The bio father isn't necessarily the best one for the job, just because he's the bio-dad. How hard is it for you to understand that having a consistent, loving parent in the child's life is the important issue??No babe.Continued insults do nothing to endear anyone to your cause. Men are not interchangeable toys like your hair curlers.Again, continued insults do nothing to endear anyone to your cause.

He doesn't think he has to endear anyone to his cause. He has stated that his
cause can be brought about by violence.

Banty

Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:55:59 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Banty wrote:This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The onlydrawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement wouldhave to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available forthe children.I'd like to see responses to this idea.BantyYep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty.Who'da thought. '-)Bob You certainly do see things that just don't exist, don't you? Nowhere in any of Banty's posts has she mentioned gender of payor and payee. You certainly have, though. Nan

Too bad toots, that ploy was old when your mama was a feminist. It
don't fly here any more.

Bob

Banty wrote: In article <17qprvcsr53e50jf9q4oh731nosck3gkum@4ax.com>, Nan says...On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:08:19 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Feminist definition: "Misogynist" --> n. someone winning a debate witha feminist. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.You spend far too much time with your comrades that also hate women.Please, I asked you not to refer to me as 'babe'.If you cannot manage to respect that, then nothing you continue to sayholds any worth for me, as a conversation.The people in this group are *trying* to hold a decent conversationwith you, and so far all you've managed to do is attack, spewvitriolic comments and be insulting.Can you please manage to be respectful?Nan Bob wants a world dominated by men, to be brought about by violence. Somehow I don't think his being respectful in a USENET discussion is in the cards. Banty

Yep, neither Banty nor Nan have posted anything respectful yet. Its
just not within their abilities apparently.

Bob

On 20 Nov 2003 09:19:47 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
In article <n5tprvco8kku3gch9iocpbkvcdbbquh60e@4ax.com>, Nan says...On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:55:59 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Banty wrote:>This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The only>drawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement would>have to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for> the children.>> I'd like to see responses to this idea.>> Banty>Yep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty.Who'da thought. '-)BobYou certainly do see things that just don't exist, don't you?Nowhere in any of Banty's posts has she mentioned gender of payor andpayee.You certainly have, though.NanThis is the sort of thing that give me the impression we're talking togenerated-response 'bots :-)

At the very least, someone that can't manage to see the forest for the
trees.
There was a discussion on the moderated misc.kids 'group fairly recently with anon-custodial mother who was upset at what her perception was of how the childsupport payments she was sending to the father was being spent. She complainedof the new wife's ciggies, reported that her teen daughter had told her thatthey weren't getting enough clothes, wondered about her ex's and his new bride'snearly-no-housing cost situation and how that should impact support payments.All of that, at least the first two things, would be addressed by the thirdparty arrangement. This isn't a gender thing.Banty

I remember that discussion. For whatever reason, Bob seems to think
only men pay support. Funny, I have court records for the weekly
support I paid for the 5 years my ds lived with his dad.

Nan

Nan wrote: On 20 Nov 2003 08:42:43 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote:In article <17qprvcsr53e50jf9q4oh731nosck3gkum@4ax.com>, Nan says...On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:08:19 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>Feminist definition: "Misogynist" --> n. someone winning a debate with>a feminist. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack.You spend far too much time with your comrades that also hate women.Please, I asked you not to refer to me as 'babe'.If you cannot manage to respect that, then nothing you continue to sayholds any worth for me, as a conversation.The people in this group are *trying* to hold a decent conversationwith you, and so far all you've managed to do is attack, spewvitriolic comments and be insulting.Can you please manage to be respectful?NanBob wants a world dominated by men, to be brought about by violence.Somehow I don't think his being respectful in a USENET discussion is in thecards.Banty I suspect you're correct. Several people have tried to be nice and have a real conversation. I don't believe Bob is capable. Too bad, as I have great sympathy for the issue that some men face, having a friend who has gone through it. But men like Bob do nothing to further the cause in a positive manner. Nan


No babe, your constant posting of feminist anti-men hate dogma and
ad-hominem flames is NOT trying to be nice.

When YOU learn to converse with a MAN in a positive manner you will get
a whole different response.

Bob

dragonlady wrote: In article <3FBCF822.70602@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Nan wrote:On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:14:55 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:I've asked you to be respectful several times, Bob.Nope, all you've done is post flames.Bob Bob accusing other people of posting flames. Now THAT'S funny. meh

Just keep posting the same old misandry. It insults every man.

Bob

In article <3FBCEA02.4030106@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
dragonlady wrote: In article <3FBCDD05.4070807@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:toto wrote:>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:59:39 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>You don't seem to comprehend the severity of the great offense a woman>>does by paternity fraud. It is very emotionally devastating to both the>>man who has been defrauded with a bastard child for some years, and to>>the father who has never seen HIS child.>>>>That's because I believe being a mother or father is more than just>the sperm and egg.>>I agree that the fraud is very real and the man is hurt badly by it,>but my interest lies with the child here.Cow****. Your interest is only in seeing men pay and support a womenand her bastard kid. Your willingness to use such insulting language about an innocent child in this situation is telling.If you were interested in the child you would be more interested inreuniting the child with his/her father.>Once again, suppose you marry and adopt a child.. Is that child>no longer yours if you divorce? Do you abandon him or her because>s/he is not your biological offspring and you and your ex-wife have>divorced?Once again adoption is not the same situation as a lying slut wifefoisting a bastard on a cuckolded man.>>Blaming the nearest available man for her cheating, lying, and>>destructive behavior doesn't cut it. SHE is guilty of depriving the>>child of his real father, as well as causing the cuckolded man severe>>emotional problems. She is the one responsible for the problem.>>>Yes, she is responsible in the case of paternity fraud. But making>the child suffer for her actions is not the act of someone who is>a real dad.Yes, the child has a real dad out there somewhere. The child willsuffer from her actions until it is reunited with his father. My father was born in a home for unwed mothers. When his mother later married, her husband refused to let my father live with them, because, he said, he wasn't going to raise "some other man's bastard." My father may have been hurt by never knowing who his bio-dad was, though when he was older and Grandma offered to tell him, he decided he'd rather not know. He was DEFINATELY hurt -- badly -- by being rejected so thoroughly by a man he knew. 1 - Not all men WANT to be reunited with a child they sired. 2 - Regardless of what happens with the bio-dad, it is definately hurtful to be rejected by the man who you thought was your father, and who claimed to love you. I can't imagine the pain of being told that that love was conditional upon biological relatedness. You're not the bio-dad either. If it bothers YOU so much why don't YOU raise the kids.

How on earth would bringing yet another stranger into a child's life
help in any way?

I am raising my own kids, along with my partner/their father.
What you want is for women to tell men what to do and force men to raise their bastards. Sorry toots, life doesn't work that way. Women are responsible. Blaming the nearest available man, as you have just done, is a classic femroid hate tactic. It tries to shift responsibility from the woman who is actually responsible.

Grandma screwed up -- no question about it. So did whatever sperm donor
deserted her (and my dad) when she got pregnant. IMO, she also screwed
up when she stayed with a man who didn't want anything to do with her
son. Your grandmother, not the nice guy she married, is the one responsible for the bastard she whelped and how he was raised.

Actually, the guy she married turned out to be a genuine son of a *****,
in so MANY ways . . .

We needn't go into my father's family history, lets just say that
grandma and her sisters did a remarkable job of finding lousy men to
marry. My mother's family does NOT have that history, and most of the
men her female relatives married are wonderful (as are most of the women
her male relatives married.)

As an off-topic aside, one of the things my parents regularly rejoice
about is that they genuinely LIKE all of their children-in-law. Maybe
that we were all raised in a house with a (relatively) healthy and
strong marriage made us all keep looking until we found winners!
Blaming the nearest available man is another hate tactic that doesn't work any more, at least not around here.

I am telling you what hurt my father, and that children are hurt when a
man they have known as "daddy" rejects them and starts calling them
"bastard".

Can you possibly deny that that hurts children?

I have two male relatives raising children who are not theirs biologically, alongside children who are. According to THEM, they don't feel any differently about the children. meh Go read "Cinderella" again.

So now not only am *I* a lying man hating femroid, but my male relatives
(one uncle, one cousin) are lying as well?

How about my BIL, who married a woman with two kids -- thought they kept
in contact with their bio-dad, they called BIL "Dad" and called their
bio-dad by his first name. When the relationship went south, BIL stayed
in until after the kids were grown and left home -- he didn't want to
desert the children who called him "Daddy".

Are all of these men somehow wrong to love children they have not sired,
and to stick by them?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article <3FBD01E5.3070906@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I suspect you're correct. Several people have tried to be nice and have a real conversation. I don't believe Bob is capable. Too bad, as I have great sympathy for the issue that some men face, having a friend who has gone through it. But men like Bob do nothing to further the cause in a positive manner. Nan No babe, your constant posting of feminist anti-men hate dogma and ad-hominem flames is NOT trying to be nice. When YOU learn to converse with a MAN in a positive manner you will get a whole different response. Bob
Actually, I converse with plenty of men in a positive manner.

But when I stop talking to you, you will probably go away assuming
you've "won" something.

Well, here's what you've "won".

--My total contempt for you (not for MEN, just for YOU). I know, given
your total contempt for me (and, as far as I can see, for any woman who
doesn't kiss your feet in total agreement with you) I imagine my
contempt is not something that concerns you.

--My genuine hope that you do NOT represent most of the men working on
behalf of men's rights in child custody and support cases; it is a
worthy cause, and I fear that if folks like you are the primary torch
carriers, it will lose.

Bye now.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:21:38 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Nan wrote:On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:14:55 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:I've asked you to be respectful several times, Bob.Nope, all you've done is post flames.Bob Pointing out your vitriol is flaming? Interesting. I suggest you educate yourself on that, as well as look in your mirror. Every single one of your posts has contained hateful comments. Nan

Go back to your bedroom where you belong toots. Boo Hoo.

> > What system would you like to see in place of child support? Maybe there could be an account held by a third party. No Toots, its not about the money. Get that "an account" out of your head. Forcing men to pay women is WRONG. Forcing men to pay women is NOT supporting a child. You support a child by putting out a plate at dinner, providing shelter and clothing, etc. NOT by paying women. The mother also has 100% concurrent responsibility to support her child.

Toots, in the real world, (unless you are a hunter/gatherer) a plate
at dinner, providing shelter, and clothing all cost money. In my
suggestion, the NCP would pay half of what the CP is paying to clothe,
shelter, and feed the child. To be fair, the CP could pay half of what
the NCP pays to clothe, shelter, and feed the child when he/she is
visiting. But now, you will probably rant about how I want all men to
only get to visit their children on weekends or something else that I
didn't say.
The custodial parent (notice I'm not assuming it's the mother) could bring in receipts for everything (except gifts). The third party gives him/her a check for half of what he/she paid. This would help assure that the custodial parent isn't spending the money on him/herself. Money, money, check, money. What is wrong with females these days. All they can talk about is men paying them money. Children are a pawn in their game to bet money, money, checks, money, money.

Toots, I was pretty gender neutral in my post.
The non-custodial parent would have an accurate idea of how much their child costs. There are flaws. If the custodial parent makes much more or much less than the non-custodial parent, than it wouldn't be fair. I guess there would need to be some sort of limits or guidelines. By the way, I don't collect child support, so this doesn't personally affect me. Renee Get a new plan Toots. Its not MONEY. Its about the children. But like a typical femroid, all you can talk about is men-pay, women get paid. Shame on you.

Toots, I see you didn't actually read what I wrote.

Renee

Nan wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:31:52 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Nan wrote:Every child as a right to *a* father. The bio father isn'tnecessarily the best one for the job, just because he's the bio-dad.How hard is it for you to understand that having a consistent, lovingparent in the child's life is the important issue??No babe. Continued insults do nothing to endear anyone to your cause.Men are not interchangeable toys like your hair curlers. Again, continued insults do nothing to endear anyone to your cause. Nobody in this thread has claimed fathers are "interchangeable", except you. What *has* been said is the emotional well-being of the child is more important than the adults that can't be bothered to remove their heads from their behinds.


Oh no? You keep insisting that a female can foist her bastard off on
any man she chooses, as if one man is as good as any other, or the same
as any other.


Feminist definition: "Best interest of the child" --> 1. Whatever
custody decision mom wants. 2. Whatever gets mom the highest payments
for "child support." 3. That which hurts dad the most.

Maybe it needs "4. Whichever man the mom wants to foist the child on,
according to Nan"

>Bob's only interest lies with the child, not with your greedy feminist>crap about "child support" from any man you can force or lie into>paying. Every child has a fundamental human right to his/her father.>Too bad you care only for the woman's meal ticket and not about the>basic rights of the child.Yeah, you keep repeating that. *Nowhere* in any of my posts will youfind the subject of child support.My concern is strictly for the emotional well-being of the child. I'msorry that doesn't play into your narrow view of the world.NanIf you want to be perceived as such then you should refrain fromrepeating feminist language commonly used in demands for payments. I'm not interested in your perception of language the courts use.The emotional well being of the child, and HIS basic human rights, areserved when he is brought to HIS father for love and support. Hisemotional well being and human rights are destroyed when mom playstinker toy "father figure" games with his life. Wrong. The emotional well-being of the child and his/her basic human rights are served when he/she is continued to be cared for by the person in his/her life in an effort to maintain continuity for the child, not to cater to the whims of the father who decides to pull the plug on the relationship.

You sound like a young girl who has little experience with adults
dealing with the life long emotional trauma of separation from their
real parents and trying to recover some sense of self upon finding their
sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, cousins and a whole family that
their mother never allowed them to have.

From one 50 yo woman who went to visit her long lost father and
sisters, "In 15 minutes we were sisters. We were the same. It was like
we had known each other all our lives. We were the same flesh an the
same family."

No babe, flesh is NOT like tinker toys. You can't just take one from
over here and stick it in over there and expect it to fit.

Every child has a fundamental right to HIS or HER family, HIS or HER
father. Blood is thicker than water. You can't just play tinker toys
and "father figures" and treat them like interchangeable pebbles.

That the mother lied is just as bad as the father hitting the dirt and abandoning the child.

No babe, the FATHER is not the cuckold that the woman tried to foist the
child upon. He is not his/her flesh. The child has brothers and
sisters, grandparents, and cousins out there somewhere. They are of
his/her flesh. To deprive the child of his/her family/flesh is a very
bad kind of child abuse. People never recover from it.

Until you are able to understand and accept responsibility in this issue, all you will manage to do is live in your own little world in which women are evil. Nan, done with this useless conversation

Your trouble is that Bob has much greater understanding of the issue
than Nan does. Bob cares about the children and the adults who they
will become. Bob has seen the tears of 50 year old men and women still
dealing with the life long problems that Nan and her sisters cause by
playing "father figure" games with children's lives.

Until Nan is able to understand the importance of family and
relationships in people's lives its difficult to discuss anything about
children with her.

Bob

Banty wrote: In article <n5tprvco8kku3gch9iocpbkvcdbbquh60e@4ax.com>, Nan says...On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:55:59 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Banty wrote:>This makes sense to me, at least on the surface. Like having a trust. The only>drawback I see is that the cost of maintaining the third-party involvement would>have to come out of the parents' resources, therefore less being available for>the children.>>I'd like to see responses to this idea.>>Banty>Yep, men paying, and women getting paid makes sense to Banty.Who'da thought. '-)BobYou certainly do see things that just don't exist, don't you?Nowhere in any of Banty's posts has she mentioned gender of payor andpayee.You certainly have, though.Nan This is the sort of thing that give me the impression we're talking to generated-response 'bots :-) There was a discussion on the moderated misc.kids 'group fairly recently with a non-custodial mother who was upset at what her perception was of how the child support payments she was sending to the father was being spent. She complained of the new wife's ciggies, reported that her teen daughter had told her that they weren't getting enough clothes, wondered about her ex's and his new bride's nearly-no-housing cost situation and how that should impact support payments. All of that, at least the first two things, would be addressed by the third party arrangement. This isn't a gender thing. Banty


Yep, its all about the money isn't it Banty?


Bob

In article <mehouck-B52437.10165220112003@news.SF.sbcglobal.net>, dragonlady
says...In article <3FBD01E5.3070906@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>wrote: I suspect you're correct. Several people have tried to be nice and have a real conversation. I don't believe Bob is capable. Too bad, as I have great sympathy for the issue that some men face, having a friend who has gone through it. But men like Bob do nothing to further the cause in a positive manner. Nan No babe, your constant posting of feminist anti-men hate dogma and ad-hominem flames is NOT trying to be nice. When YOU learn to converse with a MAN in a positive manner you will get a whole different response. BobActually, I converse with plenty of men in a positive manner.But when I stop talking to you, you will probably go away assumingyou've "won" something.Well, here's what you've "won".--My total contempt for you (not for MEN, just for YOU). I know, givenyour total contempt for me (and, as far as I can see, for any woman whodoesn't kiss your feet in total agreement with you) I imagine mycontempt is not something that concerns you.

To my mind, once I determined that his goal is for a world ruled by men (so much
for equality), and a desire to bring that about violently, there was no room
even for contempt. Only concern as to how dangerous this individual may or may
not be. But clearly there's no talking with him.
--My genuine hope that you do NOT represent most of the men working onbehalf of men's rights in child custody and support cases; it is aworthy cause, and I fear that if folks like you are the primary torchcarriers, it will lose.

Yep. Although I think in this area the social changes and the evolution of
public consensus is likely to bring about some rational changes.

Already, that women can, do, and are expected to be able to earn their own
living has resulted in the near-eradication of alimony. Note that not even
'Bob' is ranting about alimony. Ironic that it's the 'femroids' who have
removed that burden from him and others like him.

Cheers,
Banty