Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Women Divorce

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Women Divorce


    http://www.angryharry.com/tgWhyWomenDivorce.htm
    24/10/03

    Why Women Divorce
    (Letter in Newspaper)

    I am somewhat surprised that Dr. Marmoreo would choose to ignore the
    overwhelming evidence that the ultimate reason for filing for divorce
    is to gain unobstructed power and control over the children and their
    support paying parents.

    Most divorces are initiated by women. By far the most comprehensive
    study on the reasons why women file for divorce was conducted by
    Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, both economists.

    They analysed all of the 46,000 divorce certificates, with complete
    data, that were issued during 1995 in Connecticut, Virginia and Oregon.
    Their findings were published in a paper under the title "These Boots
    Are Made For Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women" (American
    Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 2, No 1, 2000 (pp126-169)

    Though the study was conducted according to the now mandatory "gender
    based analysis" principles (meaning that women have to be found to be
    the losers) the researchers conceded that most divorces are filed by
    women not because of abuse but because they are the ones who have the
    most to gain.

    Dr. Marmoreo would want us to believe that women walk out because of
    violence. In stark contrast to her perception Brinig and Allen found
    that most divorces on basis of the loosely defined term "cruelty",
    which presumably includes violence, were granted in Virginia, yet
    even there they constituted only 6% of all divorces that were filed
    by women.

    Interestingly,the media reviews that I read used the term "violence"
    instead of the original term "cruelty" (see for example John Tierney
    in the New York Times, July 15, 2000: "Divorce study finds more women
    are doing the dumping")

    In their draft, dated Sept. 16, 1998 and called "These Boots Are Made
    For Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce", Brinig and Allen wrote:
    "this paper considers women's filing as rational behavior, based on
    spouses' relative power in the marriage, their opportunities following
    divorce, and their anticipation of custody ..."

    They concluded: "Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that
    filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce.
    Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may
    be appropriated through divorce. Because the heavy investor can't
    easily move, the other party may be tempted to take advantage of the
    investor...

    We have found that who gets the children is a major component in
    deciding who files for divorce. Divorce, despite its many shortcomings,
    allows the woman to exercise control over household spending when she
    is awarded custody. If the court names her primary custodian, she
    makes most, if not all, of the major decisions regarding the child.

    As custodial parent, she will be able to spend the money the husband
    pays in child support exactly as she pleases-something she may not do
    during marriage [my note: consumer spending related research shows
    that women control the family spending and make the decisions in major,
    as well minor, purchases].

    Finally, though the court will usually have ordered visitation, she
    can exert some control over her former husband by regulating many,
    though not all, aspects of the time he spends with the child. In the
    extreme, she can even "poison" the child against the father.

    By making a preemptive filing, the wife may be able to secure rights
    such as child or spousal support that require court enforcement. When
    the wife files, she is often given temporary custody of the children.
    Temporary custody, like possession, tends to be "nine tenths of the
    law" and plays a role in the assignment of permanent custody,
    especially where the divorce does not occur for some time.

    We also note that no-fault (unilateral) divorce laws apparently do
    two things. They increase divorce filing rates generally, and they
    increase the percentage of women who file.

    The fact that women, more than men, take advantage of the easier exit,
    suggests that a return to a fault-based system will not advance women's
    goals."

    This is only one of the myriad of documents which document that in
    order to reduce the number of divorces we need to reintroduce fault
    into divorce, introduce the presumption of joint custody and do away
    with the transfer of money from one household to the next, under the
    guise of child support.

    "Child" supporting itself is a misnomer as it is now equated with
    support to the entire household where the child resides, as defined
    by the Federal Child Support Guidelines and interpreted by Madam
    Justice Rosalie Abella and other judges.

    It is of great concern that even the Globe and Mail, which used to
    at least make an effort to keep away from these kinds of propagandist
    articles, would now join the ranks of the yellow press.
    Sincerely,
    etc.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------





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

  • #2
    Why Women Divorce


    "Andre Lieven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    http://www.angryharry.com/tgWhyWomenDivorce.htm 24/10/03 Why Women Divorce (Letter in Newspaper) I am somewhat surprised that Dr. Marmoreo would choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that the ultimate reason for filing for divorce is to gain unobstructed power and control over the children and their support paying parents. Most divorces are initiated by women. By far the most comprehensive study on the reasons why women file for divorce was conducted by Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, both economists. They analysed all of the 46,000 divorce certificates, with complete data, that were issued during 1995 in Connecticut, Virginia and Oregon. Their findings were published in a paper under the title "These Boots Are Made For Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women" (American Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 2, No 1, 2000 (pp126-169) Though the study was conducted according to the now mandatory "gender based analysis" principles (meaning that women have to be found to be the losers) the researchers conceded that most divorces are filed by women not because of abuse but because they are the ones who have the most to gain. Dr. Marmoreo would want us to believe that women walk out because of violence. In stark contrast to her perception Brinig and Allen found that most divorces on basis of the loosely defined term "cruelty", which presumably includes violence, were granted in Virginia, yet even there they constituted only 6% of all divorces that were filed by women. Interestingly,the media reviews that I read used the term "violence" instead of the original term "cruelty" (see for example John Tierney in the New York Times, July 15, 2000: "Divorce study finds more women are doing the dumping") In their draft, dated Sept. 16, 1998 and called "These Boots Are Made For Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce", Brinig and Allen wrote: "this paper considers women's filing as rational behavior, based on spouses' relative power in the marriage, their opportunities following divorce, and their anticipation of custody ..." They concluded: "Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce. Because the heavy investor can't easily move, the other party may be tempted to take advantage of the investor... We have found that who gets the children is a major component in deciding who files for divorce. Divorce, despite its many shortcomings, allows the woman to exercise control over household spending when she is awarded custody. If the court names her primary custodian, she makes most, if not all, of the major decisions regarding the child. As custodial parent, she will be able to spend the money the husband pays in child support exactly as she pleases-something she may not do during marriage [my note: consumer spending related research shows that women control the family spending and make the decisions in major, as well minor, purchases]. Finally, though the court will usually have ordered visitation, she can exert some control over her former husband by regulating many, though not all, aspects of the time he spends with the child. In the extreme, she can even "poison" the child against the father. By making a preemptive filing, the wife may be able to secure rights such as child or spousal support that require court enforcement. When the wife files, she is often given temporary custody of the children. Temporary custody, like possession, tends to be "nine tenths of the law" and plays a role in the assignment of permanent custody, especially where the divorce does not occur for some time. We also note that no-fault (unilateral) divorce laws apparently do two things. They increase divorce filing rates generally, and they increase the percentage of women who file. The fact that women, more than men, take advantage of the easier exit, suggests that a return to a fault-based system will not advance women's goals." This is only one of the myriad of documents which document that in order to reduce the number of divorces we need to reintroduce fault into divorce, introduce the presumption of joint custody and do away with the transfer of money from one household to the next, under the guise of child support. "Child" supporting itself is a misnomer as it is now equated with support to the entire household where the child resides, as defined by the Federal Child Support Guidelines and interpreted by Madam Justice Rosalie Abella and other judges. It is of great concern that even the Globe and Mail, which used to at least make an effort to keep away from these kinds of propagandist articles, would now join the ranks of the yellow press. Sincerely, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.
    Interesting post.

    Another way would be to retain no-fault for divorce only, but retain fault
    as an element in the issue of property settlement.

    The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion, by way of
    the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the
    abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to the
    upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by
    consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present, and
    require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children, which is
    not required now.


    Comment


    • #3
      Why Women Divorce

      Rarin Horse wrote:
      The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion, by way of the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to the upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present, and require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children, which is not required now.
      I think that this takes the prize for one of the stupidest and most
      ill-thought out posts, though that is a tough one.

      You forget that your "solution" opens up the absolute other side of the
      coin. Men could contribute to their children only if they wanted to.

      <Slaps head and walks away> You obviously are fairly clueless about
      many things. You also obviously don't have children, and if you did,
      you would be the exact type of person that the child-support laws would
      be there for. Do a favour to the kids, *don't have any.* We don't need
      more screwed up people in the world while still dealing with you.

      Rambler
      (btb ... IIRC Andre posted this article some time ago, including the
      reference to those studies, which he aparently didn't read because they
      don't support the conclusions being drawn. <wave's "hi" to Andre>)

      Comment


      • #4
        Why Women Divorce

        In message <[email protected]>, Rambler
        <[email protected]> writes
        Rarin Horse wrote:
        The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion,by way of the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to the upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present, and require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children, which is not required now.
        I think that this takes the prize for one of the stupidest and mostill-thought out posts, though that is a tough one.You forget that your "solution" opens up the absolute other side of thecoin. Men could contribute to their children only if they wanted to.
        Most men would willingly support their children but they object to
        supporting their ex's too. Making financial contributions voluntary
        gives the custodial parent a strong incentive to not be awkward about
        access.

        Unfortunately, voluntary child support would disadvantage custodial
        fathers - non-custodial mothers are far less willing to pay child
        support even when it is court ordered.
        <Slaps head and walks away> You obviously are fairly clueless aboutmany things. You also obviously don't have children,
        That's not obvious at all. On the contrary, a father is more likely to
        know that men would support their children.

        --
        Mike

        Comment


        • #5
          Why Women Divorce


          "Rarin Horse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]> Interesting post.
          Another way would be to retain no-fault for divorce only, but retain fault as an element in the issue of property settlement. The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion, by way of the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to the upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present, and require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children, which is not required now.
          Here is a simple reason why women file for divorce and men do NOT.

          Women KNOW that when they walk into court they begin with certain near
          ABSOLUTE GUARANTEES. Those are:

          1. They will get the children!
          2. They will most likely get the house or use of the house RENT FREE until
          the youngest child is 18.
          3. They will get a monthly stipend to live on for many years into the
          future.
          4. That if there are other goodies - they will get at least 50% of them.

          Men KNOW the following:

          1. They will NOT get the children even when they are the better parent.
          2. That they will be stripped of nearly all their worldly good by the courts
          regardless of her bad conduct.
          3. That they will be an indentured servant for the rest of their lives.
          4. That no matter what they do they will be viewed as a "deadbeat dad." (or
          worse)




          Comment


          • #6
            Why Women Divorce


            "krp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
            news:[email protected]
            "Rarin Horse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]> Interesting post.
            Another way would be to retain no-fault for divorce only, but retain fault as an element in the issue of property settlement. The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion, by way of the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to the upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present, and require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children, which is not required now.
            Here is a simple reason why women file for divorce and men do NOT. Women KNOW that when they walk into court they begin with certain near ABSOLUTE GUARANTEES. Those are: 1. They will get the children! 2. They will most likely get the house or use of the house RENT FREE until the youngest child is 18. 3. They will get a monthly stipend to live on for many years into the future. 4. That if there are other goodies - they will get at least 50% of them. Men KNOW the following: 1. They will NOT get the children even when they are the better parent. 2. That they will be stripped of nearly all their worldly good by the courts regardless of her bad conduct. 3. That they will be an indentured servant for the rest of their lives. 4. That no matter what they do they will be viewed as a "deadbeat dad." (or worse)


            "...These words he speaks are *true*.
            We're all Humanary Stew!!!
            ....if we don't pledge allegiance to..."


            Comment


            • #7
              Why Women Divorce


              "Rarin Horse" ([email protected]) writes:
              "Andre Lieven" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
              http://www.angryharry.com/tgWhyWomenDivorce.htm 24/10/03 Why Women Divorce (Letter in Newspaper) I am somewhat surprised that Dr. Marmoreo would choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that the ultimate reason for filing for divorce is to gain unobstructed power and control over the children and their support paying parents. Most divorces are initiated by women. By far the most comprehensive study on the reasons why women file for divorce was conducted by Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, both economists. They analysed all of the 46,000 divorce certificates, with complete data, that were issued during 1995 in Connecticut, Virginia and Oregon. Their findings were published in a paper under the title "These Boots Are Made For Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women" (American Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 2, No 1, 2000 (pp126-169) Though the study was conducted according to the now mandatory "gender based analysis" principles (meaning that women have to be found to be the losers) the researchers conceded that most divorces are filed by women not because of abuse but because they are the ones who have the most to gain. Dr. Marmoreo would want us to believe that women walk out because of violence. In stark contrast to her perception Brinig and Allen found that most divorces on basis of the loosely defined term "cruelty", which presumably includes violence, were granted in Virginia, yet even there they constituted only 6% of all divorces that were filed by women. Interestingly,the media reviews that I read used the term "violence" instead of the original term "cruelty" (see for example John Tierney in the New York Times, July 15, 2000: "Divorce study finds more women are doing the dumping") In their draft, dated Sept. 16, 1998 and called "These Boots Are Made For Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce", Brinig and Allen wrote: "this paper considers women's filing as rational behavior, based on spouses' relative power in the marriage, their opportunities following divorce, and their anticipation of custody ..." They concluded: "Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce. Because the heavy investor can't easily move, the other party may be tempted to take advantage of the investor... We have found that who gets the children is a major component in deciding who files for divorce. Divorce, despite its many shortcomings, allows the woman to exercise control over household spending when she is awarded custody. If the court names her primary custodian, she makes most, if not all, of the major decisions regarding the child. As custodial parent, she will be able to spend the money the husband pays in child support exactly as she pleases-something she may not do during marriage [my note: consumer spending related research shows that women control the family spending and make the decisions in major, as well minor, purchases]. Finally, though the court will usually have ordered visitation, she can exert some control over her former husband by regulating many, though not all, aspects of the time he spends with the child. In the extreme, she can even "poison" the child against the father. By making a preemptive filing, the wife may be able to secure rights such as child or spousal support that require court enforcement. When the wife files, she is often given temporary custody of the children. Temporary custody, like possession, tends to be "nine tenths of the law" and plays a role in the assignment of permanent custody, especially where the divorce does not occur for some time. We also note that no-fault (unilateral) divorce laws apparently do two things. They increase divorce filing rates generally, and they increase the percentage of women who file. The fact that women, more than men, take advantage of the easier exit, suggests that a return to a fault-based system will not advance women's goals." This is only one of the myriad of documents which document that in order to reduce the number of divorces we need to reintroduce fault into divorce, introduce the presumption of joint custody and do away with the transfer of money from one household to the next, under the guise of child support. "Child" supporting itself is a misnomer as it is now equated with support to the entire household where the child resides, as defined by the Federal Child Support Guidelines and interpreted by Madam Justice Rosalie Abella and other judges. It is of great concern that even the Globe and Mail, which used to at least make an effort to keep away from these kinds of propagandist articles, would now join the ranks of the yellow press. Sincerely, etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------
              Interesting post.
              Thank you. I find such items of topical interest, from time to time,
              and they are enlightening.
              Another way would be to retain no-fault for divorce only, but retain fault as an element in the issue of property settlement.
              Sure. The point is that if a contract is freely breakable, with AbZero
              just cause given, and proven ( as it would have to be in any other kind
              of contract dispute ), while profiting from said contract's breaking,
              well, its not really any sort of contract at all, is it ?
              The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion, by way of the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to the upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present, and require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children, which is not required now.
              Quite. The fact that every province and state in N. America has
              governmental offices of child support enforcement, but none of
              child access enforcement, speaks volumes to that societal misandry.

              Andre


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

              Comment


              • #8
                Why Women Divorce


                Rambler ([email protected]) writes:
                Rarin Horse wrote:
                The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion, by way of the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to the upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present, and require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children, which is not required now.
                I think that this takes the prize for one of the stupidest and most ill-thought out posts, though that is a tough one.
                <Projection> Well, that was a convincing, fact based rebuttal...

                Oh no, it wasn't, it was just frothing ad hominums. The last
                refuge of the argumentless scoundrels.
                You forget that your "solution" opens up the absolute other side of the coin. Men could contribute to their children only if they wanted to.
                So, when a custodial mother impedes access, and the kourts don't
                sanction her a whit for violating their orders, then what ?

                Hmm ?
                <Slaps head and walks away> You obviously are fairly clueless about many things. You also obviously don't have children, and if you did, you would be the exact type of person that the child-support laws would be there for. Do a favour to the kids, *don't have any.* We don't need more screwed up people in the world while still dealing with you.
                Ah, more from the last refuge of the argumentless scoundrel.
                Rambler (btb ... IIRC Andre posted this article some time ago, including the reference to those studies, which he aparently didn't read because they don't support the conclusions being drawn.
                No proof offered ? Claim fails.
                <wave's "hi" to Andre>)
                Pass.

                Andre

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why Women Divorce


                  Mike ([email protected]) writes:
                  In message <[email protected]>, Rambler <[email protected]> writes
                  Rarin Horse wrote:
                  The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion, by way of the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to the upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present, and require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children, which is not required now.
                  I think that this takes the prize for one of the stupidest and mostill-thought out posts, though that is a tough one.You forget that your "solution" opens up the absolute other side of thecoin. Men could contribute to their children only if they wanted to.
                  Most men would willingly support their children but they object to supporting their ex's too. Making financial contributions voluntary gives the custodial parent a strong incentive to not be awkward about access.
                  Of course. Further, were a default start point of legal and physical
                  joint custody in force, with sanctions that would raise the possibility
                  of losing some/all of those rights, if one repeatedly violated that
                  status, and that were seen to be enforced, that would be a very
                  clear statement that would have the effect of minimising anyone,
                  men and women, screwing around with court orders.
                  Unfortunately, voluntary child support would disadvantage custodial fathers - non-custodial mothers are far less willing to pay child support even when it is court ordered.
                  Indeed.
                  <Slaps head and walks away> You obviously are fairly clueless aboutmany things. You also obviously don't have children, That's not obvious at all. On the contrary, a father is more likely to know that men would support their children.
                  And, anyone who had bohered to consult one of the most prominent
                  and well researched works on this topic, " Divorced Dads; Shattering
                  The Myths ", by Sanford Braver, would find that that is factually
                  true.

                  Deniers tend to be *unable/unwilling* to offer up their own claimed
                  cites... Thats because they're... vapourware...

                  Andre

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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Why Women Divorce

                    In message <[email protected]>, Andre Lieven
                    <[email protected]> writes
                    Mike ([email protected]) writes:
                    Most men would willingly support their children but they object to supporting their ex's too. Making financial contributions voluntary gives the custodial parent a strong incentive to not be awkward about access.
                    Of course. Further, were a default start point of legal and physicaljoint custody in force, with sanctions that would raise the possibilityof losing some/all of those rights, if one repeatedly violated thatstatus, and that were seen to be enforced, that would be a veryclear statement that would have the effect of minimising anyone,men and women, screwing around with court orders.
                    If separated parents had joint legal and physical custody, there would
                    be no reason to transfer money from one parent to the other. Each could
                    support the child(ren) whilst they had actual custody. The problem of
                    enforcing so-called "child support" orders would then be limited to
                    those cases where joint physical custody wasn't possible. Such as
                    where, for example, the mother has been violent to her partner/children,
                    or otherwise abused them, and it would be dangerous for her to have
                    access to them.
                    Unfortunately, voluntary child support would disadvantage custodial fathers - non-custodial mothers are far less willing to pay child support even when it is court ordered.
                    Indeed.
                    <Slaps head and walks away> You obviously are fairly clueless aboutmany things. You also obviously don't have children, That's not obvious at all. On the contrary, a father is more likely to know that men would support their children.
                    And, anyone who had bohered to consult one of the most prominentand well researched works on this topic, " Divorced Dads; ShatteringThe Myths ", by Sanford Braver, would find that that is factuallytrue.Deniers tend to be *unable/unwilling* to offer up their own claimedcites... Thats because they're... vapourware...
                    The whole misandrist movement is based on myths.
                    --
                    Mike

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Why Women Divorce


                      "Rambler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                      news:[email protected]uni-berlin.de...
                      Rarin Horse wrote:
                      The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion, by
                      way of
                      the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to
                      the
                      upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present,
                      and
                      require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children,
                      which is
                      not required now. I think that this takes the prize for one of the stupidest and most ill-thought out posts, though that is a tough one. You forget that your "solution" opens up the absolute other side of the coin. Men could contribute to their children only if they wanted to. <Slaps head and walks away> You obviously are fairly clueless about many things. You also obviously don't have children, and if you did, you would be the exact type of person that the child-support laws would be there for. Do a favour to the kids, *don't have any.* We don't need more screwed up people in the world while still dealing with you. Rambler (btb ... IIRC Andre posted this article some time ago, including the reference to those studies, which he aparently didn't read because they don't support the conclusions being drawn. <wave's "hi" to Andre>)
                      Is that the best you can do? Nothing of what you have said gives any reason,
                      it's just mere personal abuse. As for 'men could contribute to their
                      children only if they wanted to' what's that supposed to mean? The fact is,
                      and the issue is, that men are being forced to contribute to "their"
                      children even if they don't want to.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Why Women Divorce


                        "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                        news:[email protected]
                        In message <[email protected]>, Andre Lieven <[email protected]> writes
                        Mike ([email protected]) writes:
                        > Most men would willingly support their children but they object to supporting their ex's too. Making financial contributions voluntary gives the custodial parent a strong incentive to not be awkward about access.
                        Of course. Further, were a default start point of legal and physicaljoint custody in force, with sanctions that would raise the possibilityof losing some/all of those rights, if one repeatedly violated thatstatus, and that were seen to be enforced, that would be a veryclear statement that would have the effect of minimising anyone,men and women, screwing around with court orders.
                        If separated parents had joint legal and physical custody, there would be no reason to transfer money from one parent to the other. Each could support the child(ren) whilst they had actual custody. The problem of enforcing so-called "child support" orders would then be limited to those cases where joint physical custody wasn't possible. Such as where, for example, the mother has been violent to her partner/children, or otherwise abused them, and it would be dangerous for her to have access to them.
                        The reason the law probably won't start with a presumption of equal custody,
                        is because the criterion is about the children's welfare, not the parents'
                        rights. Why should children be shuttled around every week or month just
                        because the legal system has got an obsession with trying to force men to
                        pay for women's way in the world. There would be no need to try to force a
                        shared living arrangement on children if the legal system was not trying to
                        force people to pay for their children. Contrary to popular belief, there is
                        no need for the law to force parents to pay for their children. It's just an
                        excuse that women have been using for the past 5,000 to try to get men to
                        pay them to do what they would have wanted to do anyway. Those who want to
                        look after children should look after them, and stop trying to force other
                        people to pay them for it!

                        Unfortunately, voluntary child support would disadvantage custodial fathers - non-custodial mothers are far less willing to pay child support even when it is court ordered.
                        Indeed.
                        ><Slaps head and walks away> You obviously are fairly clueless about>many things. You also obviously don't have children, That's not obvious at all. On the contrary, a father is more likely to know that men would support their children.
                        And, anyone who had bohered to consult one of the most prominentand well researched works on this topic, " Divorced Dads; ShatteringThe Myths ", by Sanford Braver, would find that that is factuallytrue.Deniers tend to be *unable/unwilling* to offer up their own claimedcites... Thats because they're... vapourware...
                        The whole misandrist movement is based on myths. -- Mike

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why Women Divorce


                          Mike ([email protected]) writes:
                          In message <[email protected]>, Andre Lieven <[email protected]> writes
                          Mike ([email protected]) writes:
                          > Most men would willingly support their children but they object to supporting their ex's too. Making financial contributions voluntary gives the custodial parent a strong incentive to not be awkward about access.
                          Of course. Further, were a default start point of legal and physicaljoint custody in force, with sanctions that would raise the possibilityof losing some/all of those rights, if one repeatedly violated thatstatus, and that were seen to be enforced, that would be a veryclear statement that would have the effect of minimising anyone,men and women, screwing around with court orders.
                          If separated parents had joint legal and physical custody, there would be no reason to transfer money from one parent to the other. Each could support the child(ren) whilst they had actual custody. The problem of enforcing so-called "child support" orders would then be limited to those cases where joint physical custody wasn't possible. Such as where, for example, the mother has been violent to her partner/children, or otherwise abused them, and it would be dangerous for her to have access to them.
                          Exactly. Its telling, in that every state and province in North
                          America has an office of child support payment enforcement, yet
                          none have offices of parental co-access, and that the former, at
                          least in the US, get *more Federal money*, the more cases they
                          take on/create.

                          " Show me the money ! " " Jerry McGuire ".
                          Unfortunately, voluntary child support would disadvantage custodial fathers - non-custodial mothers are far less willing to pay child support even when it is court ordered.Indeed.
                          ><Slaps head and walks away> You obviously are fairly clueless about>many things. You also obviously don't have children, That's not obvious at all. On the contrary, a father is more likely to know that men would support their children.
                          And, anyone who had bohered to consult one of the most prominentand well researched works on this topic, " Divorced Dads; ShatteringThe Myths ", by Sanford Braver, would find that that is factuallytrue.Deniers tend to be *unable/unwilling* to offer up their own claimedcites... Thats because they're... vapourware... The whole misandrist movement is based on myths.
                          Truth.

                          " Feminism; The radical idea that women are people. "
                          " Masculinism; The even more radical that men are people, too.
                          Feminists hate that idea. "

                          Andre


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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Why Women Divorce

                            I heard krp, [email protected] say something silly like...
                            "Rarin Horse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]> Interesting post.
                            Another way would be to retain no-fault for divorce only, but retain fault as an element in the issue of property settlement. The solution is to abolish laws that enable women to use coercion, by way of the government, to treat men as money objects. This would involve the abolition of compulsory "child support". Men could still contribute to the upkeep of children by consent, and women could obtain such help only by consent. This would remove the immoral element of coercion now present, and require women to be reasonable in their dealings over the children, which is not required now.
                            Here is a simple reason why women file for divorce and men do NOT. Women KNOW that when they walk into court they begin with certain near ABSOLUTE GUARANTEES. Those are: 1. They will get the children! 2. They will most likely get the house or use of the house RENT FREE until the youngest child is 18.
                            Not where I come from. You sure as hell have to pay your rent, even if
                            you're divorced.
                            3. They will get a monthly stipend to live on for many years into the future.
                            Again, not where I come from. You'll get childsupport (approx. $165 a
                            month) and that's about it.
                            4. That if there are other goodies - they will get at least 50% of them. Men KNOW the following: 1. They will NOT get the children even when they are the better parent. 2. That they will be stripped of nearly all their worldly good by the courts regardless of her bad conduct. 3. That they will be an indentured servant for the rest of their lives. 4. That no matter what they do they will be viewed as a "deadbeat dad." (or worse)
                            Why would a man being viewed as a deadbeat dad, unless that's what he
                            is?

                            --
                            knoxy

                            mhm34x10
                            smeeter #6

                            Can we start a petition to get knoxy to stop posting to soc.men as her
                            mindless, undeveloped, and illogical one-liners are just so tiring to
                            read.
                            - S.Taylor, soc.men reg

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Why Women Divorce


                              "knoxy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                              news:[email protected] t...
                              Again, not where I come from. You'll get childsupport (approx. $165 a month) and that's about it.
                              You live in India,... or Mississippi?
                              I paid twice that per *week*, and my collar's blue as hell.
                              Yer a nut.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X