Comments on: Terminology Explanation: “MRA”

By: threemilechild

threemilechild — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:08:36 +0000

Confused:
You’re changing the subject. The legal right to abortion is being argued elsewhere. Care to explain why biological differences in available birth control mean that men have no moral and should have no legal responsibility to their offspring?

By: h0tr0d

h0tr0d — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:23:05 +0000

EG – Patriarchal tradition went the way of the dodo bird a long time ago. Are there any women here that dont expect their husband to participate in child rearing. And even if your a stay at home mom, the reason the dad is at work is to provide for the family. Believe it or not that is contributing to the good of the child. If a man does not want to share custody, there’s not much of a discussion. Why would you object to presumed shared custody if “most” fathers wouldn’t be interested ? The DV stats that are phoney are the ones that most feminists throw around like 95% of DV is initiated by men, but they have no reference. There is plenty of data at the CDC website which documents that DV cuts both ways and for young adults, women are more likely to initiate violence and in non-reciprocal cases of DV men are more likely to be the victim.

Maintaining a child’s lifestyle is not realistic. Just look at the math, you have one household with some total income. Now you have to run two households with the same income. How is it possible to maintain a lifestyle ? zuzu, care to share your vision ?

mythago, how in the world would a man benefit from child support ? I’m sure there are some men that get child support payments, but I think they are a distinct minority. And unlike most feminists I don’t think there should be special rules by gender, so if child support tables are too high, that means men with custody should get less….very simple. You sound very angry.
You shouldn’t confuse your experiences with all men.

By: mythago

mythago — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:54:21 +0000

First, the women shoud gain no benefit from child support.

But it’s OK if a man benefits from child support?

I actually believe it would be better for men to get primary physical custody more often. Let them juggle single parenthood and work instead of showing up to play Fun Daddy on weekends and bitching that the ex spends too much money on necessities.

By: gaia

gaia — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:41:21 +0000

EG – I’ve heard of custody arrangements where the kids stay in the same house and mom and dad rotate out to an apartment (usually the same apartment to keep costs down).

h0tr0d – Active fathers are almost NEVER denied joint custody. If I were to get divorced right now, I know no judge would award me full custody. Mr. Gaia is a very involved father and shares equally in childcare duties. And has from the beginning (even before the beginning – he made it a point to come to every OB appointment with me).

By: zuzu

zuzu — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:27:25 +0000

And the Father should take the financial hit so that the wife and kids should maintain their lifestyles.

I so love this argument. As if maintaining the lifestyle of the kid costs significantly more now that it’s assessed as a monthly or weekly lump sum rather than as the largely-invisible expenditure it was when the couple was together.

And, newsflash! Someone else has to make up the rest of the cost of maintaining the child. Who could that be?

By: EG

EG — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:58:00 +0000

Further, you seem ignorant of the fact that when a father cares enough to contest custody, he is rewarded with increased custody more than half the time. His child support payment is the reduced. And then, you know, quite often the funniest thing happens. He starts to spend less and less time with his kids…and then the mom, if she has the resources, has to go back to court.

You also don’t seem to get that what is at stake with child support is maintaining the kid in the style to which it had been accustomed when its parents were married. If it had previously lived with a dad who was a lawyer and a mom who was a SAHM, its standard of living was probably pretty good. In the scenario you suggest, the kid goes from that to spending one week with a lawyer who is now supporting himself all the time and a kid half the time rather than himself, his wife, and his kid all the time. And the next week, the kid is living with its mom, who has had to re-enter the workforce after a 6-year absence. She hasn’t been able to find a job, or the only job she’s been able to find pays 10 bucks an hour. The kid is therefore spending half the time considerably worse off than it had been before. When it comes to a child’s standard of living, you can’t just average the two extremes and call it even. It’s how the child lives all the time.

I would add that I don’t think that having to change homes every week is good for a kid. Children generally need stability. Aren’t all these fathers at all concerned about what’s best for their children? If they’re not, they don’t deserve custody at all.

By: EG

EG — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:42:56 +0000

The courts want to collect the child support money.

You’re assuming the mother has the money and resources to go to court in the first place. Tell me, do you have any insight at all into how divorce works here in the real world?

By: EG

EG — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:41:08 +0000

No, not out of “dumb luck.” Out of patriarchal cultural tradition that has succeeded in making women overwhelmingly take on the role of primary caretaker for children. Why should a child’s routine life be turned upside-down because Daddy decides to run off with a woman he met on the train? If the kid is used to being taken care of by Mommy, why can he not go on being taken care of by Mommy? Because Daddy doesn’t want to have to write a check? You think that’s in the best interest of the child?

Marriages should end with a presumed joint custody agreement unless abuse is present on either side.

I refer you again to the fact that women are overwhelmingly children’s primary caretakers. When men take on half of the parenting work while married, they have a right to joint custody.

I note that you’re also assuming that most fathers want joint custody. Considering the number of men who skip out on their kids and show little to no interest in seeing them, I suspect you have a rude awakening in store.

By the way, nice attempt at slight-of-hand there, saying that joint custody should be presumed except in cases of abuse, and then claiming that DV stats are “phoney.” Don’t tell me, you believe in PAS too, right?

By: h0tr0d

h0tr0d — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:37:50 +0000

annalouise,

The courts want to collect the child support money. That’s how they collect more matching dollars from the feds. They want to collect all child support payments and run it through their system to maximize the money paid out by the federal govt. That’s how the system is so corrupt, they incent states to collect more and more child support.

By: h0tr0d

h0tr0d — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:33:12 +0000

OK, so then you agree the kids should not be punished, and since the mother has primary custody, then she benefits out of dumb luck ? And the Father should take the financial hit so that the wife and kids should maintain their lifestyles. Well I have a fundamental disagreement with that. First, the women shoud gain no benefit from child support. Can we agree this is not the case ? Marriages should end with a presumed joint custody agreement unless abuse is present on either side. Than each parent is responsbile for 50% of the child care costs. Just like that we have an fair solution. But no, now while organizations like NOW say there should be no presumed custody and drag out their phony DV statitistics. Family Court is a trap and there are so many studies to prove it…..maybe I will post one per week.

Will y’all read it ?