Amanda of Pandagon (who is also a frequent poster on “Alas”) will be appearing on Glenn Sacks’ radio show today. (Glenn has been mentioned on “Alas” a few times in the past).
As you might recall, Glenn’s show, “His Side,” is men’s rights activist central, so if anyone’s free from 5pm to 6pm pacific time (8pm to 9pm eastern) today, I’m sure Amanda would appreciate feminists calling in to give her some support while she’s in “enemy territory.”
You can listen to the show live on the web here, where you’ll also find instructions for calling in.
And even if you can’t call in, join me in sending “good luck vibes” Amanda’s way today!
I can’t really phone in as I’m so far away, but anyway, Amanda: Give ’em hell!!
Thanks for the support!
What I find very, very telling is the commericials. Listen to all those ads for divorce lawyers who will “Win at any cost”. You’ll hear a lot about getting justice for dads, and not alot about getting justice for the kids.
Thanks for calling in, Amp! Your call really impressed me and gave me an idea that I rode for the rest of the show to continually remind people that there’s never a *happy* ending in a divorce, but there is minimizing damage.
Any chance of a transcript of the interview?
Pingback: Pandagon
Yeah, it was cool that you called in Amp. I heard Glenn go “Barry has been waiting….” and I was all “COOL, I’m going to get to hear what TWO of my favorite bloggers sound like”.
Did anyone record this? I’d like to hear it as I accidentally missed it.
Mousehounde: As far as I know, Glenn doesn’t do transcriptions, and I’m not gonna do one myself because it’s too much work. :-) If we got fifteen people willing to transcribe five minutes each, though, that would do it. Or we could pay a transcription service – my guess is that if we told them to skip the commericals and the bits before Amanda first spoke, it would be around $100.
Lauren: An audio file of the show will be up on the “His Side” archives sometime soon, I imagine.
Antigone: I’m told that you called in and kicked butt too! I couldn’t listen to the last half of the show, but I’m looking forward to listening sometime later.
Amanda: Great! I’m very happy if what I said was helpful to you.
I’d transcribe it, but I’m of the belief to never listen or watch myself on tape unless I can go back and improve my performance :)
I’ll volunteer to transcribe 5 minutes from the online file. (Assuming enough other people are willing — I don’t want to have 5 lonely orphaned minutes!)
I’m a little alarmed at the idea of all my “ums” and “you knows” getting preserved like that. Now y’all have solid confirmation of my ignorant-sounding West Texas accent.
Well, judging from your radio comments, that’s not the only thing of which you are ignorant-sounding. Unless and until you are willing to really listen to fathers and attempt to understand the father-child bond and how it is routinely, systematically and sometimes thoroughly ruined in family court, you will be acting on an ignorant pretense. If it is difficult for you to understand that a father’s love for his child(ren) can be absolutely true and incorrupt, then your judgments of all men are inherently flawed. If you simply don’t want to admit such, you have nothing to add to the discussion but your own bigotry.
Hey, I listened to that whole show (yelled at times, but yes, I did listen) and Amanda didn’t say word one about the quality of a father’s love. What she did say is that mandatory joint physical custody is not in the best interests of the child (you know, the one we’re all supposed to love unreservedly and look out for the best interests of). There is no solution to custody after divorce that can possibly be fair to all parties. Divorce is a bad business – necessary, but bad, at least where there’s children involved.
Once admit that there is no one great solution that works every time, and perhaps we can discuss this intelligently. It’d be nice if all divorcing parents could put aside their animosities and work together on what was best for their kids, but in this world that’s not gonna happen.
Well, judging from your radio comments, that’s not the only thing of which you are ignorant-sounding.
Starts off with a pure personal attack. The idea is that, by calling Amanda ignorant (what the hell does the child of a divorced family know about divorce?), he’ll be setting her up for… what?
David, do you really imagine that worthwhile exchanges begin with insults? Is that how the really, really good father’s advocates meetings begin; you guys sit in a circle, call each other ignorant bigots, and from there the conversation really takes off and goes productive places?
Look, I understand you’re feeling indignant that Amanda has dared to disagree with your view. But get off your high horse – not everyone in the world agrees with you. And if I don’t agree with you, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m not listening; it may mean I listened, but nonetheless disagreed.
(I don’t think that anything in the human world – not even a father’s love or a mother’s love – is “absolutely true and incorrupt.” But that’s just me.)
Why does there have to be a winner and loser with kids. Child support is about emotional, physical and financial support. Emancipated women shouldn’t need politically-correct alimony. No parent should have lesser access to the child then the other. Quebec has mandatory mediation without this “Families in Anguish” industry of divorce lawyers and divorce judges (former Divorce Attys who are political appointees). Get the government out of the lives of fit parents and concentrate on things that government should do: protecting our environment for example.
My post is gone. Wow, censorship just as I said. If you limit the debate to like minded people, then you are essentially talking to yourself. You are not interested in a dialog, just a hallelujah chorus. Time to go back under my bridge.
Kelly, I haven’t deleted any posts from this thread yet – I don’t know what you’re talking about. And it’s not like I make any secret of the fact that I moderate my threads.
I love how MRAs are all for one kind of female “emancipation”–being emancipated from getting the sort of support for child-rearing that men get without asking.
Of course, that “emancipation” is rarely accompanied by MRA support for being emancipated from a husband that you divorced.
Good stuff, Amanda! I missed the show, but listened to the archives. Remember the little folks who were reading Mouse Words before you became a national media star!
The only thing I regret about the performance was that I think your strongest point is humor, and there was never really an occassion for you to entertain the listeners with a clever wisecrack. You didn’t come off as deadly serious or anything: just, there are no clever phrases that I’ll be laughing about for weeks. I suppose joint custody isn’t exactly a really funny subject, so it’d be silly to expect too much there. Other than that, you held your own, made good points, and kept focused on the topic on hand.
That was the first time I’ve listened to Glenn Sacks, and maybe the last. The whole “I’m the only guy in existence who thinks men are decent human beings” shtick irritated me, as did his constant interruptions. It’s not so much the men’s rights agenda that irritated me (though that too): if a feminist radio host hosted MRAs and constantly cut them off I’d be irritated too. I guess I’m just a sucker for the infamous C-word, civility, and Glenn doesn’t quite cut it for me.
I’d be willing to do four minutes of transcription or something (we can cut out the ads, right?), but only once my finals are over. That’ll be in about five days. Anyone with me?
I had a paragraph long post on this thread earlier, now its not there.
If emancipation from your ex husband means liberating him from his children, you don’t have my sympathy. You both are still joined at the hip until they are 18, and even then you will be someday be grandma and he will be grandpa. You can complain or you can deal with it. I don’t like my ex, but I love my children far more. We split the time and decision making. We live close by each other, and neither one of us would move away without the other. I would never ask them to choose between us, that would be morally wrong on the deepest level. That way they have “fierce loyalty” to both of us, not just mom….hint, hint Amanda.
Kelly, who exactly do you think you’re arguing with? Perhaps the MRAs who are mad that being ‘joined at the hip’ means ‘paying for expenses’?
I love my father very much and my mother was and still is a very good person and lucky for myself and my brothers, she did not buy all the anti-male bulldust she was being fed and”NO” she was no doormat.
With the amount of male bashing over the past 40 years there are few who have not been negatively affected. Men must be allowed to speak about thier inner experience of being painted as “the bad guy” all thier lives so that our children, both male and female can get some kind of balance as to understanding what has happened to themselves and thier generation and why so many were stolen from thier fathers for no reason other than he was male.
I know there are enough good males and females left to undo much of this damage, but it will take much heartache and I dare say, a lot more abuse from people who are making a career of male bashing, many with no other motivation than to be with the “in crowd” and further thier bank balance. No I am not accusing anyone in particular here.
Untill men are seen as equal to women there can be no resolution. There are too few females who are willing to be responsibe for thier actions. With rights comes responsibility. For some time abusing men in any way you can has been treated as a game. Many women have been unwilling to relinguish the powerful position of ” Head Socializer of children”? The trouble is you are being replaced and many of you support your own downfall and that of your children.
Hopefully, soon this, supposed feminist period will come to pass as have others, to be disected and ridiculed as just another politically motivated fad from the past. Did you females really think the patriarchs in government were sucking up to you for your benefit?? Now we have Mums being forced back into the work force ealier and earlier in thier childrens lives and Dads kicked out of thier childrens lives altogether. Have a look at the big picture, start caring for one another and stop the point scoring.
First and foremost, she’s arguing with the bogeyman who dun went and ate her post. Really it was the collective hive mind of the feminist spirit, Kelly, we willed it away, knowing it beheld nothing but truths we women feared hearing about how men and women should both be allowed to parent their children.
Oh wait, many of us are parents and agree with that sentiment. We simply choose to qualify it with a: men and women that are fit should both be allowed to parent their children.
If a man is abusive to his wife – well, perhaps he should have thought about smacking the mother of his children around a bit more carefully?
That isn’t to say that all unfitness is on the side of men. In fact, I don’t think anyone on here would assert such an absurd claim. Just that it often does play a part in custody, and it’s irresponsible and wrong to push for joint custodial priviledges without reviewing the reasons for the seperation, or the potential reasons that make person B unfit, or A more fit to be the sole custodial parent.
Yes Kelly, and the point is that false allegations from women are often believed and true allegations from men are hardly ever believed, so men are at a distinct disadvatage straight away in being portrayed as a demon when he in fact may be the best parent even if he was not the primary caregiver during marriage. Just because someone refuses to work to support the family does not mean they have been a good parent. The opposite may be true in that they were lazy right across the board and smacked the man and his kids about on top. Happens quite a bit. Of course this is a culturally sensitive issue that makes people think and challenge the status quo, but we cant have that can we?
Karl, where are the women on this board who think “the patriarchs in government were sucking up to you for your benefit?” I’ve heard many things on the discussion threads of “Alas, a Blog,” from all varieties of feminists and non-feminists, but that one is entirely new to me.
It is, sadly, frequently considered that the mother is automatically the better parent. As it is, sadly, frequently considered that a man is automatically a better engineer, airplane pilot, banker, electrician, scientist, soldier, etc. Feminists are not big supporters of gender roles.
I believe you are correct that the abusive partner is frequently unemployed and generally doesn’t contribute much, rather than fitting neatly into the “homemaker” or “breadwinner” role. At least, that’s the case with men, who are usually the abusers. I would suspect it’s the case with abusive women too. Don’t know, though.
If emancipation from your ex husband means liberating him from his children, you don’t have my sympathy. You both are still joined at the hip until they are 18, and even then you will be someday be grandma and he will be grandpa. You can complain or you can deal with it.
Well, I suppose it’s classier than peeing on women to claim them.
Karl, words of great wisdom!
There are many grown ‘fatherless children’ who resent their father being banned from their lives while growing up. Many have reunited with the fathers they were not allowed to know as children, and now greatly resent their loss.
Men are never considered good enough in our society these days. Oh, they’re good enough to send to war and die for our freedoms, but many are no longer afforded many of those freedoms. For the most part, males of all ages have been relegated to second-class citizens who no longer have even basic civil rights.
I never thought I’d see the day when a father could lose all rights to his child with a mere request of a protecetive order. They are given out to any female who requests it. Women’s groups teach what to say and how to get one with no questions asked, some even pay the ‘victim’ to lie to get one.
I believe the abuse of the power of this document has caused great destruction to vast numbers of children and fathers. I personally know of several women who have lied on this sworn statement in order to get their way. They should all be prosecuted, but their unlawful behavior will be totally ignored solely because they’re female. Females are always considered to be victims, and males are always considered to be the devil himself. It’s total bunk, and as a strong woman, I resent the label. That’s the “politically correct” way to feel these days though.
Is this really the equality that women started fighting for years ago? The radical feminist groups rake in billions of tax dollars every year. They use (admittedly) false statistics and cries of injustice to gain control and power over every part of the justice and family court system. I’ve lost all respect for what use to be a just cause, but has turned into a great travesty against humanity, especially our children. I would much prefer the way things were in the 50’s to what has happened to the American family now.
The tide will surely turn at some point, but what will be left in the wake of all the destruction? Only one thing is sure, the traditional American family will be extinct at some point in the near future, because there is no turning back now.
“For the most part, males of all ages have been relegated to second-class citizens who no longer have even basic civil rights.”
Oh, please. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry in the face of such obviously ludicrous claims. Try reading some of the other threads here (or, heh, try actually reading the news or maybe even talking to others in real life) to see just how “second-class” men’s lives *really* are.
Wow, what a bunch of horse doo-doo. In essence, the last few anti-feminist folks have stated:
– Women are liars.
– No really, all they do is lie.
– Feminists don’t want men to be part of child rearing.
– No really, they don’t.
– Dead-beat parents don’t have jobs because the system is extorting them.
– Doesn’t matter that their children need them, because it’s a given that the dead-beat parent is a victim of the system, and therefore justifiably not responsible for the children they supposedly love so much.
– The 1950’s nuclear family is preferable to now.
– The 1950’s nuclear family is ‘traditional’ (since the 1940’s/1950’s of course, but lets not be silly and quibble about this, we’re talking -tradition- here).
So much straw, so very little time. Also, these statements all come while talking OVER and AROUND the feminists on this board because it would be inconvenient to use anything like, well, the actual ideas or thoughts of feminists to portray the thoughts and ideas of feminists.
I’ve been falsely accused to prevent me from getting to my house and seeing my son. I’ve never missed child support. Mom quit the home business she made to maximize support. 5 years after divorce Mom lied again and accused me of child abuse to get more control. DCFS found the charge unfounded but Mom was rewarded restrictions that I had to fight in court to change. Guilty until proven innocent has been my experience with family law, not all men have the time and resources to fight. Glen Sacks was one of the only places I saw on the web that offered free information. I checked out the breakthrough parenting link and found it help me improve my parenting and understand the court system better. Having my family and my access to my son limited has been horrible for us. Marc has missed out on many trips with Grandma because Mom needs to keep my visitation to 30%. I don’t think all women are abusing the system like my sons mom and I don’t think all men are as the feminist say. Many men were cheering as their sisters and cousins broke through the traditional boundaries. My son’s Mom, who is on her forth marriage, can be extremly violent and vindictive I am sure their are other men dealing with the same. I’ve spent so much money to protect my rights with my son. I’m so happy that I was able to meet a wonderful woman who is great with kids and helped change my opinion of marriage and women. In the Breakthrough Parenting class I saw both men and women dealing with abusive slandering spouses. “Catch them being good!”
Best,
Steve
Julian Elson Wrote:
“I believe you are correct that the abusive partner is frequently unemployed and generally doesn’t contribute much, rather than fitting neatly into the “homemaker”? or “breadwinner”? role. ”
I have no idea what the stats are, but the abusers I’ve known best were working men with pretty good images in their community. This observation could be an accident of my upper middle class background, dunno. Reading the worst of the MRAs forcibly reminds me of one of the abusers I’ve known – while he did work, he contributed almost nothing at home (despite having married a feminist!), was astonished to be hauled off when he knocked his wife around a bit, screwed around but was shocked and outraged when his wife finally started doing the same, and when the divorce hit it was all “me, me, me”, with barely a thought for the kids, even when I flatly and repeatedly told him, “Look, you’re an adult. Your wife is an adult. Suck it up and do what’s right for your kids.” He’d say, “Of course I care about the kids,” but then was right back on, “me, me, me” and plotting all manner of things to do to his soon-to-be-ex-wife that would (had he succeeded) devastate the kids.
Abusive husbands don’t always fit the cliche – while my family was concerned when my friend married this guy, and I even tried to talk her out of it, we never imagined he’d actually be abusive. We just thought he was your standard self-centered jerk. Instead he was so convinced of his right to hit his wife he did it while I was visiting! And expected me to endorse his actions, no less.
It continues to amaze me that a man that deluded can even function in this society…
Celia wrote:
“Oh, they’re good enough to send to war and die for our freedoms, ”
This is the third time this week I’ve seen someone whining about feminists pull the “war card,” and I never fail to laugh at it. Do anti-feminists not even read what other anti-feminists have to say? Do anti-feminists not read regular newspapers? Both books and newspapers have trumpeted the fact that feminists have done their absolute level best to get women into the military for decades.
Brian Mitchell wrote a whole book on the subject – “Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military.” Chapter after chapter on how feminists have labored, by fair means or foul, to get women into the military and to convince society that, in the case of war, we should risk both men and women. Mitchell, being unsympathetic to the feminist cause, tends to focus on the means he considers foul, but the underlying principle is the same – feminists have battled mightily against the idea that men should be sacrificed in war, while women should not.
Feminists have fought far harder than any other group to try to eliminate this unfairness, so it is unbelievably silly for anti-feminists to “challenge” feminists with the “horrible fact” that men go to war and women do not. Perhaps I am the only one who ever comments on this because most feminists figure someone foolish enough to accuse feminists of in any way wanting men to go to war while women remain safe at home is clearly irrational on that point…
Sheryl
I love these guys because—hey, I just got back from Iraq. I was in combat. They can bite me. How come there’s this 1000-to-one rule for guys? If one guy does it somewhere, then all guys get credit for it, yet if one woman does something—like me—-it barely even affects me? Then there’s the opposite rule: If a thousand guys do something, it doesn’t mean a damned thing, but if one woman does something, it must mean there’s a thousand women out there getting away with it.
Shame on you men…
I sit back and read your surly comments clearly aimed at convincing the “feminists” that they are wrong and that you are right. You throw out a couple of shots, they reply with a few “deadbeat dads”, “every man is an abuser”, “woe is me”, and the never ending cycle of worthless debate continues. Men, you must reconcile yourselves to the fact that you will not win the debate. It cannot be won. You cannot reason with unreasonable people. Bad mothers, by their own actions have done more to discredit themselves than we ever could by pointing it out. They know they aren’t fit to parent, but they can’t tolerate you knowing it, or worse yet pointing it out.
Don’t allow these self-important windbags to rile you. You don’t need a woman to tell you what is right or wrong or how to raise your children, so stop listening to them. Don’t worry about the feminist hype. It is unimportant and irrelevant.
There is a job to be done in this country. So quit giving weight to their silly arguments and make the change happen. Join a local or national fathers’ rights organization and hit the streets and courthouses in protest. Write letters to your local newspaper editor or senator if you wish. Do whatever you want, but get off your collective butts and do something significant.
Take some comfort in two things.
1) The current trend in the country toward conservative values is highly incompatible with the feminist leadership and their views. Their political strength has dwindled and will continue to do so.
2) As many “feminists” point out, this country is run by men. That tells me that we don’t have a very steep hill to climb.
That being said, stop complaining and take action.
“Untill men are seen as equal to women there can be no resolution.”
and
“For the most part, males of all ages have been relegated to second-class citizens who no longer have even basic civil rights.”?
Whenever I see some ignorant sap spout this crap I remember the comment that a co-worker made when he was unhappy w/ the service at the local IBM branch. “Bunch of niggers & women,” he said. And that makes it clear that men are not yet the equals of women in the eyes of the common woman.
Clearly Celia is right. As a man I no longer am able to speak freely nor am I allowed freedom from unreasonable search and seizure nor am I allowed to peacefully meet with fellow citizens, nor do I enjoy the myriad of other basic civil liberties that only women have these days. Damn those women and their male-bashing that has consigned me to this second-class citizen status!
I’m beginning to feel guilty. I wasn’t going to post on this until the furor died down lest my blog get overrun. Didn’t occur to me that the trolls would spread out to others.
Ampersand says (post 15): “Starts off with a pure personal attack. The idea is that, by calling Amanda ignorant (what the hell does the child of a divorced family know about divorce?), he’ll be setting her up for… what?”
I did not call Amanda ignorant. I suggested she may be acting on an ignorant pretense with respect to what is really important to FRAs. Many men are motivated by a common experience of institutionalized gender discrimination in family court. From the perspective of many fathers, such discrimination is a vicious, destructive social evil and we seek change through social and political channels. If you wish to view us as misogynistic jerks sitting around in a circle ridiculing anti-father feminists then that is your business.
Additionally, my post did not mention “divorce” nor are Amanda’s or my views on divorce relevant in the context of my post. Putting words into my mouth in an attempt to discredit my views is a poor substitue for reasoned disagreement or the “productive” discussions and “worthwhile exchanges” which you apparently find lacking.
Many men are motivated by a common experience of institutionalized gender discrimination in family court.
You think I just pulled my criticisms of this belief out of thin air? No, I think, upon reading mounds and mounds of the stuff FRAs put out, that you are motivated by not getting your way as you think you are entitled, as a man.
Amanda,
I would think fighting against institutionalized gender discrimination would be a subject familiar to many (true)feminists. It therefore seems ridiculous that you find it so difficult to believe that gender discrimination exists.
Perhaps you believe discrimination only exists in some one-way universe, that corporations or government institutions never exploit men, racial minorities never hold racist views, homosexuals are never hetero-phobic. A small bit of research would likely uncover “mounds” of evidence that suggests this is not so.
To use your definition, the feminist movement is about “not getting your way as you think you are entitled”, as a woman. Fine, but if you really believe that certain principles of justice apply only to women and not to all human beings equally then such a concept indeed lacks credibility and perhaps was pulled out of thin air.
The fact remains, women are under no obligation to pay for their children. The child will either by paid for by the father, or the state.
Futhermore, in most states, safe-haven abandonement by a mother is legal.
This is not equality.
David, you don’t know me or my writing nearly as well as I know the MRA viewpoint. Perhaps you don’t want to get into this. Discrimination “against” men in the caretaking role for children is usually enacted by men themselves in marriages where they assume that women will take on the child-rearing duties and also the amazing benefit of falling behind in your career that comes with it. Once the divorce comes, these men expect the “non-discrimination” of men’s natural right to own wife and child to be honored in court and are alarmed to find that the courts are not as kneejerk pro-male dominance as they used to be. Not getting your way all the time is not “discrimination”. And I’m sick and tired of men whining and sending letters to me begging for my pity because just once in their life they didn’t get one over on a woman. Sorry.
The thing that really makes me sick is to hear these men demand that their children be jerked around and messed with in order to get “fairness” and then say that they’re doing it for the children. Bullshit. Hold your pearls, fellas, it was a man who explained to my dad that joint custody is a bad idea for his children and my dad, no feminist by any stretch, has turned around and educated other men on the same subject. I’m extremely sick of being told I’m anti-male when I am offering a way for men to minimize damage, form post-divorce relationships with children that are productive, and not get taken for every dollar they’re worth by lawyers.
Amanda,
First, I appreciate even your half-hearted attempt at civility. However, I don’t need to be told by you or your dad what is good or not good for my own children. That’s just plain silly. You know nothing about the social, physical and emotional well being and needs of our children, their relationship with their parents and their own desires as people in their own right. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. From my experience, the courts know marginally more than you and rely instead on cookie-cutter solutions based on notions whose usefulness has long since passed.
Finally, your comments, unfortunately, indicate that you really have absolutely no grasp of the issue. I divorced my wife, not my children. You don’t fool me or any other serious FRA. Don’t fool yourself either. You offer men nothing. You can’t. You’re mired in a mindset that insists on defining the problem in terms of a narrow ideology and it’s resultant irrelevant subject matter. The gender discrimination I speak to happens, it’s real, it’s unjust and it will change just as there was great change for women over the last 40 years. Like any social movement based on the principles of social justice and the civil rights of citizens, we will eventually prevail because our cause IS just. History is likely to view you and your ilk as the George Wallaces of the South at gates of the school explaining why the ‘stupid monkey people’ shouldn’t be allowed in.
Good day ma’am.
Amanda, I don’t see this offering, which I feel would be very valuable to kids, mom’s and dad’s. Will you point me in the direction of the writing regarding these specific offerings?
ginmar:
“I love these guys because…hey, I just got back from Iraq. I was in combat. They can bite me. How come there’s this 1000-to-one rule for guys? If one guy does it somewhere, then all guys get credit for it, yet if one woman does something…like me…-it barely even affects me? Then there’s the opposite rule: If a thousand guys do something, it doesn’t mean a damned thing, but if one woman does something, it must mean there’s a thousand women out there getting away with it. ”
Why did nobody else notice the excellence of this post?
[stands up & cheers ginmar].
Thanks Sheena. I did notice the “excellence” of ginmar’s post. Well, half excellent. What about the missing half of her excellence? I hope at least some had the insight to see that this 1000 to 1 rule also applies in reversed gender roles as well, in one thousand ways descriminating against men, fathers and boys. Women are not the only ones descriminated against. Try reading a bit from Warren Farrell’s books.on the varying realities of equality between the genders.
*ick, ick, ick, ick, ick*
Some days, i hate the internet. I feel we would be better off (and more polite all around) if we had face to face discussions. On the other hand, we might just kill each other. Never know.
Anyway, let’s try and find some common ground here:
Gender roles hurt everyone. Females AND males. Duh. So, if you want to get RID of these said gender roles, join the feminist movement, not the MRA’s. What the MRA’s seem to overwhelmingly be advocating for are STRICTER gender roles, not less restrictive ones. I have not heard a single solitary MRA advocate for stay-at-home-fatherhood. Not one.
The father’s rights have some legitimate concerns: the courts are biased against the non-primary caregiver. To change this?
a) Be a more involved parent during the marriage
b) Don’t be abusive to your wife or children (or, on the flip side, don’t let your husband be abusive to wife or children) . At the very least, document the abuse.
c) Be adults. Seriously. If you cannot set aside your conflict of being a parent, the courts will. Because it’s in society’s best intrest to have a child raised in a good envirnment.
d) If the courts find you to be the non-custodial parent PAY THE DAMN CHILD SUPPORT! You are supporting your CHILD, the person you claim to love. If you love them, you will want to make sure that they are being raised with enough food, clothing, and a good house. You are not supporting the ex, that’s what alimony’s for. If you want to bitch about alimony, make sure you pay your spouse for the housework.
Gender roles are bad, and unproductive. Divorce is messy and complicated.
What I’ve taken away from these types of threads:
Don’t get married. And for god’s sake, don’t have children.
“Don’t get married. And for god’s sake, don’t have children.”
Done and done!
Thank you, Sheena. I’ve noticed that telling men you’re a combat vet has the wonderful effect of shutting up the whole, “But men have to go to war!” whine.
Yeah, men have to go to a foreign land to go to war: for women, it’s right here on our streets, nobody gives us a weapon–hell, we even get bitched at for fighting back—, and the enemy refuses to fight fair or even wear a uniform. The only way you can identify them is by the same old code phrases they all use, every damned time.
Can’t imagine why wingnuts want to keep women out of combat, do you?
That being said, stop complaining and take action.
Gee, that sounds kind of threatening. I guess as long as women aren’t wearing burkas there’s a war to be waged, isn’t there, Bob? Nice strawman there, too.
Kind of gives you another insight into why they don’t want us knowing how to fight, much less able to cite our skills and our sacrifice against them, doesn’t it?
Oh, and I just posted something about how we view criminals over at thread about how only white girls go mising. *sarcasm* It’s kind of a compliment to these MRAs here, wanting only white guys to matter.
advoc8, Warren Farrell’s books, huh? YOu agree with his position on incest and date rape, then?
“Before we called it date rape we called it…exciting.”
Yeah, that’s discrimination all right.
Tell you what, guys. You think what you get is so bad in terms of discrimination? I mean, you face men everywhere you look. The president is a man—and has always been a man. Most leaders of religion, politics, business, and law are men. These are the people discriminating against you.
YOu think that’s so bad? Yeah, well, walk a few miles in my boots, guys. I’ll trade you. You want discrimination? I’d love to experience the sort of discrimination men get to.
Oh, wait.
I did.
It was when my mom used to tell me that I couldn’t have everything I wanted.
I was five at the time.
“Why did nobody else notice the excellence of this post?”
Sheena: :o
I was going to fix the wording of “God Bless The USA” and serenade ginmar with it, but I didn’t want to get my ass kicked. Aside from that, I concur that her original point is valid, even if I am a fuzz-headed hippie peacenik.
Women should fight in combat, if necessary.
Women should have equal pay for the same job at equal quality.
Women should have the right to abortion and birth control – both pre and post coital options.
And men should have all of the above rights and responsibilities, as well.
Right now it is not equal. If “feminism” truely is interested in equality then they should also fight the injustices in the family court systems.
The fact that women are supported by laws specifically allowing them to “opt out” of pregnancies while also subserviating men, is an injustice and does not represent “equality”.
Live up to what you preach.
Uh, David? Did the whole ‘fem’ thing confuse you?
Sorry, just can’t do it. In a world where men face male judges, male cops, male CEOs and can probably go through life not facing one powerful female, they whine like kicked puppies.
Dude, the day men get pregnant is the day they get to tell me what to do with my body. But I guess this means you get to take me up on my offer! Here’s your DIY sex change kit, complete with knife. Go cut your rights in half and slash your salary by a third.
Live with that for a while, then get back to me, okay?
I’m not telling you or any other woman what to do with your bodys.
I have routinely worked with highly educated and very highly compensated women on a daily basis in the engineering and marketing fields. Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered existence – all I can see is that focused education and effort pays very well for those inclined to push themselves.
Carly Fiorina seemed to do pretty well at HP and they have just recently announced Cathy Lyons as executive VP and Chief Marketing Officer….and these women are paid millions per year. Pretty good on anybodys scale.
My comments were not intended to inflame you – or produce combative responses.
The fact remain very clear and very one sided, however.
Just so you know, this David addressed “Amanda” and is not associated with the most recent “David” posts #41, 51, and 53.
And Antigone, there is no need to “advocate for stay at home fathers” of which there are many in case you didn’t know. In fact, Glenn Sacks was a stay at home father and if I understand correctly he is the primary care giver for his daughter. But for your benefit, consider this an advocation for stay at home fathers even though that is already available to us if we choose.
With regard to paying your “damn child support” to support your child, please direct me to any law that requires one penny of any support received to be spent on a child.
Antigone made the point.
David, I suggest that you pay your support in cash and make sure to mark the bills so that you can make sure that this dollar was spent on clothing for the child and not say to replace an earlier dollar spent on the child. How patently ridiculous to think that your ex-wife doesn’t spend money on the children. Perhaps they sleep outside naked and scrounge for food?
Until FRAs worry less about what their ex-wives are “getting away with” now that they aren’t under direct husband supervision anymore and start worrying about children, we’ll be going nowhere fast. In the meantime, keep nickel and diming their mothers, guys, and watch those children grow to hate you.
all I can see is that focused education and effort pays very well for those inclined to push themselves.
If you don’t want to inflame people, try not to insinuate that women do not succeed because of their own laziness, mmmmkay?
It’s the cowardice that gets to one after a while, I swear.
I pointed out that these people are very successful, and have concluded over the long haul that most (but not all) successful people are that way due to hard work. There is lots of data to support this position.
I am not sure where you draw your insinuations from.
Abortion and contraception is not *just* being able to pick when and where we will have kids. Abortion and contraception is about choosing if we want to be pregnant. There’s a subtle difference.
Pre-birth, the ZEF is attached to a female’s body, using the females blood, nutrients, air. Without me, the ZEF would be dead. It’s a 2-1 ownership: My ovum, my body vs. your sperm.
After birth, however, it is a child. And then it becomes a half-and-half responsiblity: someone needs to take care of this child finacially and emotionally. If you prove to be incapable of providing any of the emotional benefit, you supply some finacial benefit.
My heart goes out to the guys who legitimately want to see their kids. It does, and there should be some scrutiny done to judges that make biased calls (thus the process known as “appeals”). But, I have no pity whatsoever to sperm-donars who are upset that they have to pay child support. None. That is there responsiblity now. I don’t feel any sympathy to mothers who have to pay child support, either. That is YOUR CHILD. Do you honestly want your kid to resent you because you don’t feel he/she is important enough to give some cash to?
>After birth, however, it is a child. And then it becomes a half-and-half responsiblity: someone needs to take care of this child finacially and emotionally.
Shorter david:
Some women are economically very successful. From this we can come to the logical conclusion that, economically speaking, there is economic equality between men and women. I have seen succesful women. Isn’t that proof enough?
The fact remains, women are under no obligation to pay for their children. The child will either by paid for by the father, or the state.
David, this is ludicrous. In Oregon at least, any state support is directed at the PRIMARY CUSTODIAL PARENT. It has no inclusion of vagina, and no exclusion of the penis. Also, you are being deliberately obtuse if you are claiming that non-custodial mothers are not expected to pay child support. The patent sexism that is rife in this ‘poor us’ statement is so angering to me because it is so very deliberate and willful.
Futhermore, in most states, safe-haven abandonement by a mother is legal.
Shame on you, David. Once a child is abandoned, it’s abandoned and the reason this law exists is to make sure that children don’t end up DEAD. DEAD, DAVID. While I cannot say for sure, I’m pretty darn sure (and will be looking it up when I have the chance) that safe-haven abandonment is not gender specific. The law is about the children, not about the parents and you should know better than to mix this law with child support. Makes me sick to think you’d combine the two as a related issue.
That’s right Amanda, they sleep outside naked and scrounge for food at moms and she spends the money on cigarettes and pedicures… Your patronizing, sophomoric smokescreen aside, you didn’t answer my question. Are YOU aware of ANY law that requires mom to spend support she receives to clothe and feed the children while they are in her care? Perhaps you are interested in passing a law that would require mom to use support money to feed and clothe children and put a stop to any such outrageous situations? Just let me know.
How sad for you that you so easily equate love with money, that if a father’s role as money provider is compromised for any reason that his children might somehow (perhaps should even be encouraged to) hate him. Take the lid off your ideological box and look around! The world is replete with dirt poor people that have very loving families.
It may be easier for you if my children hated me but fortunately I am able in our home to clothe them, give them a warm bed, provide regular and nutritious meals for them, AND keep the money flowing to mom. However, I don’t for a moment demand love in return for any of that. I teach them how to love by loving them. THIS is why they will likely continue to love me. I guess in your world my children should grow up to hate their mother because she doesn’t help out with our expenses by sending a check (or marked bills) every month.
Here is my bill- It’s not about men, it’s not about woman,it’s about whats fair for the children. lets not forget that.
FAISER- fathers and innocent spouses for equality/relief
A bill to reform the child support system nationwide
1. To be allowed the freedom and respect of choice as does any other American citizen and be able to have consideration for the fathers debts and living expenses. Such as home ownership, food and clothing. Even just the basics of normal life.
2. When the children reach 18 the child support payments stop and each child (ren) upon reaching 18 the amounts start to go down according to how many children are being supported. For example if a father is paying $500.00 a month for four children when one child reaches 18 the amount is reduced by $125. And so on.
3. To have our after taxes take home pay be considered as part of the basis for support, not before.
4. To have the state give vouchers to the custodial parent that can be used towards a part of the childrens needs (food, shelter, clothing, educational materials) when a payment is received from the obligor. That way the funds don’t go to the bar down the street.
5. Make it a crime for ANY state/federal worker to change figures that a parent fills out on any paperwork. Making them accountable for their unsavory and unfair practices. Have a independent company do random audits on Support enforcement to verify that they are complying.
6. For those people that are making an effort to pay the support on their own- STOP GARNISHMENT, LIENS
Oh, looks like somebody’s been caught.
I just love these FRAs, trying to screw their kids over and call it ‘concern.’
Taking after tax wages as the basic figure? God, how cheap can you get? These are YOUR KIDS. You are trying to get away with screwing YOUR KIDS.
Boy, these guys really don’t care who they have to hurt to get back at the wife, do they?
David:
Money is fungible, David; the CS is deposited into the same account that all the other money goes to. There’s no way of keeping track of which dollar is spent where.
There are, however, laws that require mom (or dad, if the custodial parent is a father) to spend money – regardless of if it came from CS or not – on feeding, housing and clothing the children. Failing to feed, house and/or clothe children is called “neglect,” and it’s a serious crime in many states.
Innocentspousepayingforit (couldn’t you choose an easier name to type?) –
Why not call for child support payments to be tax deductible? It seems to me that would help out non-custodial parents without hurting kids or custodial parents. I’d have no problem supporting that – child support should be tax deductible (for the same reason that dependents are).
Regarding #2, you seem to be assuming that there are no benefits of scale to having multiple children. That assumption seems unlikely to be true.
Regarding #3, are you suggesting that judges are currently unaware of the fact that take-home income is smaller than pre-tax income? It seems to me that judges would just react to this policy by raising the proportion of CS-to-income so that the overall payments would remain the same.
Regarding #4, you’re proposing creating a new government bureaucracy (51 of them, actually) in order to solve a problem that you haven’t even proved exists. If a custodial parent is neglecting the child or children, then the laws against child neglect should apply. Why do we need new special laws, when the laws against neglect already exist?
>>Shame on you, David. Once a child is abandoned, it’s abandoned and the reason this law exists is to make sure that children don’t end up DEAD. DEAD, DAVID. While I cannot say for sure, I’m pretty darn sure (and will be looking it up when I have the chance) that safe-haven abandonment is not gender specific. The law is about the children, not about the parents and you should know better than to mix this law with child support. Makes me sick to think you’d combine the two as a related issue. >>
Nope, not gender-specific. It doesn’t necessarily relieve the abandoning parent of all legal responsibility for the child, either–it simply decriminalizes the act of abandonment. And, like you said, it makes it possible for parents, primarily women, to leave babies in hospitals.
Plus, having to earmark the dollars seems like it’s an awful waste of time and money.
For instance, if a custodial parent drives a kid to school, does that parent get to call some gas and part of the insurance as for the child’s wellbeing and get to use child support money on that? Cable? Phone? Heat? Rent? Where’s it “for the child” and then “for the mom?”
If you feel your kid is neglected, then you should call the state and call for negligence. If you feel that your ex has it too nice, then you’re being an asshat.
Thanks Ampersand, for having the courtesy to admit you are not aware of any law that requires “child” support to be spent on children. I am not aware of one either.
It seems to me that if NCPs are going to be sent to jail for being behind in their support it is reasonable to require that children are indeed the beneficiaries of such harsh enforcement policies. Vouchers, or individual CS “debit cards” are two ideas that deserve some consideration. This would be especially true if there were a pool of “unused” support that could go to those getting very small amounts (ie, those with $10,000 monthly awards subsidizing those with $100). (Wow – a father and a socialist too. What next – voting for Kucinich?)
I don’t really want to get into the AMOUNT of support debate as that is a different politcal scheme. But I agree with Ampersand that CS should be tax deductible by the payor. It would reflect the economic reality for those that do pay of being income upon which the payor pays “income” tax but which he/she never realizes as “income.” It may also provide a mild incentive to someone to pay that may otherwise not.
>>I don’t really want to get into the AMOUNT of support debate as that is a different politcal scheme. But I agree with Ampersand that CS should be tax deductible by the payor. It would reflect the economic reality for those that do pay of being income upon which the payor pays “income”? tax but which he/she never realizes as “income.”? It may also provide a mild incentive to someone to pay that may otherwise not.>>
Uh, actually, you do realize it as income. It’s money that you make that you get to spend taking care of your kids. Custodial parents don’t get to deduct child-related expenses (admittedly, it’d be pretty sweet for my family if they did). A custodial mother wouldn’t get to deduct the amount of money she is most definitely contributing to the child’s upkeep. This kind of double standard would likely create a really poisonous sense of entitlement–the idea that child-rearing and its related costs are something that non-custodial parents don’t have to take equal financial responsibility for.
What, specifically, could your proposed CS debit card be used to pay for? Rent/mortgage? Grocery bills? Utilities? Auto (purchases & insurance)? Gifts? Dining? How would you determine what percentage of each that you say yes to could be paid by the CS debit card? What sort of beaurocracy will be needed to oversee this & enforce this? How much will that cost in terms of percentage of CS?
David, if she’s making the kids sleep outside naked and scrounge for food, as she would be doing to refrain from spending money on the children, then you can be assured the law will take the kids from her. And even then, the child support is going to the rent/mortgage on the yard for them to sleep naked in. Sorry, you’re justifications for getting control over how your ex spends her money aren’t flying with me.
I’m amused once more at the protests that withholding child support is “for the children” somehow, since FRAs are doing what they do “for the children”. Pathetic. Nickel and dime and obsess to make sure your ex doesn’t have a minute’s peace, huh, all “for the children” as well?
Ampersand- Yes in fact that is # 7 that didn’t seem to post. The rest of it is as follows-
7. To be able to claim equal amounts of the child(ren) on their taxes. It’s unfair that only the custodial parent can claim them while the other is paying for them too.
I had a lengthly post which the web site didn’t post. But it’s mainly about how you shouldn’t judge people. My husband is very loving and caring to his children and when he was out of work and couldn’t pay he still brought them food from our own freezer and wood for their wood stove. If all you can do is put people down I dont’ see how you can get anywhere productive in life or society as a whole.
Nuh uh.
I knew this one guy in college whose ex-wife forced the children to scrounge for sheet metal in junkyards while she invited every male attorney in her practice group over for caviar and champagne parties! And she beat them when they begged for nutritious food! And then! When the littlest one developed lockjaw, she spent the money for the doctor on shoes! Shoes for herself! And his lawyer said that he had no legal recourse at all! And he didn’t! Because I can use google to search the WorldNet archives, even though I think “LexisNexis” is a cell phone company!
Shorter me: What Amanda said. Neglect isn’t any more legal when it involves care than when it involves money.
C’mon piny, Support paid is not income realized to the payor. If you don’t understand elementary economics, rudimentary accounting definintions, or the instruction to your 1040EZ, I can’t make it any more clear for you. Of course you fail to explain why the current double standard of the NCP paying the income tax on money that the CP receives as tax-free income doesn’t “create a really poisonous sense of entitlement…”
Jake: There are several more legitimate questions with such an arrangement as well as with vouchers. Since this is an idea open for discussion please feel free to contribute your answers to your questions. A few things are certain, it could not be used for cigarettes, liquor, pedicures, dog grooming, casinos, pedicures, pleasure boats and luxury automobiles, ‘adult’ entertainment or cosmetic breast enhancement surgery. Perhaps expenditures forbidden as well would be your ex-spouse attorney, the fine for a DUI conviction, gemstone jewelry, and perhaps a few more items from the absolutely unlimited things support can now be used for. I think you get the idea that it would be limited to relevant basic expenditures.
What is the current cost of the CS bureaucracy? Why is the cost important to you?
income The receiving parent is already in conflict with your Under your scenario the receiving parent would have taxable income for CS received.
Amanda,
Little I say is going to “fly with you.” I think we can agree on that. “George Wallaces of the South” indeed
You guys would be miserable with “debit” cards since once they were implemented, you’d find they don’t give you the control you wanted.
Amanda,
I have been looking for that offering. I know so many people who could use it. Seems to me that no intelligently person can catagorize the feelings of any father, mother or child/children in any family based upon the beliefs of the person doing the catagorizing. There are women who physically abuse men, there are men who do the same to women. There are dads and moms who do support their children and provide them the same lifestyle they had before the family ripped apart, then there are moms and dads who don’t. Not one case is the same and NOBODY can say that women are worse than men or men are worse than women. The laws must be fair, and unbiased based on every human being no matter what your gender is. How can anyone want less for humanity.
Respectfully responding to Amanda when she says she offers men something, patiently waiting for that offering to be defined, giving polite, gentle reminders, and speaking in gender neutral and reasonable terms apparently can only mean one thing to Amanda: All men want is control.
Exactly how is making your ex tell you exactly what he/she is using the money for anything BUT control?
But I agree with Ampersand that CS should be tax deductible by the payor.
Really? I’m filing for divorce the minute that happens. I like the idea that my children’s normal, everyday expenses could be tax-deductible, if my partner and I were no longer legally married.
Tax deductibility is a regressive way of helping non-custodial parents with child support. For parents making $22,000 who are struggling with child support payments, the deduction pays for 15% of child support expenses. For parents making $330,000, the deduction pays for 35% of child support expenses.
“Really? I’m filing for divorce the minute that happens. I like the idea that my children’s normal, everyday expenses could be tax-deductible, if my partner and I were no longer legally married.”
LOL
Yeah, I can’t see a policy like that doing much to lower the divorce rate.
Still patiently waiting for an answer on the CS debit card idea of David’s. Or are you not serious about it?
You assume that fathers only want “control,” then you wonder why you are accused of misandry? Why do you think fathers are motivated by a desire for control? Don’t you think that perhaps, just maybe, some of them are simply looking for fairness?
So, if you donated money to say… a charity, and you wanted to make sure the charity actually spent the money on the cause it was upholding, then would you be trying to “control” the charity?
If you pay taxes, would you be trying to “control” the government if you wanted to make sure the money goes to the programs it’s supposed to instead of into the pockets of bureaucrats?
If you must pay money that is supposed to go towards X, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to make sure your money actually goes towards X. Is wanting accountability really just about control?
Last time I checked, child support wasn’t supposed to be alimony. Some feminist posters have suggested that if a mother really spent the child support on herself and neglected the child, then she would incur charges of neglect. But couldn’t a mother spend just barely enough of the child support on a child to take care of its basic needs, then spend the rest on herself? I don’t know what amount of custodial mothers actually would do such a thing, but under the current system there is nothing stopping them from doing it if I understand things correctly. Hence, the system is objectively unfair, even if only a small amount of custodial parents exploit that unfairness.
I think payment vouchers are a better idea. My husbands ex is an alcholic who spends it at the bar. “now how is that fair to the children?”
I spoke to DSHS about it and they said basically it was her choice as to what to spend it with. EXCUSE ME!!! It’s supposed to be for the kids. This just makes me so very angry how the rules are sided.
“But couldn’t a mother spend just barely enough of the child support on a child to take care of its basic needs, then spend the rest on herself?”
And the non-custodial parent gets to decide what the “bare minimum” would be ? Even if said parent hadn’t really done the bulk of the child-rearing in the marriage ?
Gevalt.
“EXCUSE ME!!! It’s supposed to be for the kids. This just makes me so very angry how the rules are sided. ”
Custodial parents are also * quite* capable of pissing away their money on drink, gambling etc when it should eb spent on the kids.
I never suggested that non-custodial parents should decide any such thing. Why are you making such ridiculous assumptions?
So they should be able to waste child support payments also?
Then who should decide, Aegis ? I’m sure you’re dying to tell us. [rolleyes]
I apologise for my lack of clarity. When I said “custodial parents”, I was actually referring to parents in “intact”, non-divorced families, not custodial post-divorce parents. And with my own extended family history in mind, I was thinking specifically of feckless alcoholic fathers who shirked obligations while still married.
Oh please Aegis. (rolling eyes).Grow up or Wake up!!!!. Actually I think it’s a good idea for the custodial parent to pick from a list of the childrens needs then when the funds are received to the state vouchers are sent out for that need.
So, if you donated money to say… a charity, and you wanted to make sure the charity actually spent the money on the cause it was upholding, then would you be trying to “control”? the charity?
Aegis, supporting a child is not a charity. Not supporting your child is called neglect. This connotation is absolutely immature and inaccurate.
Every child incurs expenses. I have one, with one on the way.
Parents attempting to make custodial parents justify every dime that they spend without legitimately suspecting (and in that case presumably as it is their responsibility reporting) child neglect are simply being assholes.
The expenses of having a child living with you are not negligible, and a few hundred dollars a month out of pocket is not unreasonable to expect of non-custodial parents.
What are they helping to pay for?
Food, childcare, clothing, bills in general. Should custodial parents have to write down how many loads of childrens laundry they do to justify part of the money going to the water bill? Should how much time a child spends in a lighted room or in a heated house, or using an electric source be listed for the perusal and judgement of the non-custodial parent? Should every mile driven on the car that is either driving a child somewhere or driving to get a child from somewhere be written down for the non-custodial parent? Should that run to the market to pick up a bottle of bactine because they scraped their knee and you didn’t realise you were out be kept in receipt to be shown to non-custodial parent? Should that trip to the swimming pool with their friends and the snacks they have be listed? How about the new sippy cups? The wipies, the diapers, the soap, the bandaids? Should a non-custodial parent get to come in once a month and take inventory and be provided with receipts? What about that oil change for the car? Sure the kid didn’t need it, but the car did, and not getting it causes what to happen? OHHHH that’s right! The engine head could crack causing you to pay hundreds of dollars in repairs.
And what nerve of the custodial parent that they should happen to want to go out for free time on occassion, right? That they might wish to spend money on -anything- other than the child, because not only the child support, but the money they have outside 0f the child support should be justified, else why would they need child support, right?
And this isn’t about control? Give me a fucking break.
The numbers aren’t arbitrary, and the court decides how much is needed to help support that child.
I really haven’t followed FRA very closely, so I didn’t have a very strong opinion. I’m going to assume those posting here from that side are among the best spoken advocates of that position. I’ve gotta say, it looks like it’s all about control.
David has written:
“.A few things are certain, it could not be used for cigarettes, liquor, pedicures, dog grooming, casinos, pedicures, pleasure boats and luxury automobiles, ‘adult’ entertainment or cosmetic breast enhancement surgery.”
And how do you determine that it is child support money going for these items and not custodial parent money gotten from other sources? And you’re not going to let your kids get their dog groomed? How do you expect me to believe that you are looking out for the best interests of your children when you spout stuff like that? How do you determine (and who determines) what is a luxury car & what is not? What is more important to you, how well your ex-wife lives or how well your kids live? From what you have written it seems that the most important thing on the FRA agenda is to make sure that the ex doesn’t live too well. And that is why it seems to me that people are right when they say that this is all about control.
Oh, and you look like fools when you complain that feminists (and you might look up the definition of the word and its roots) aren’t working to make things better for men.
I have a complaint. Why don’t FRAs work to make things better for women?
Kim (b.v.) and others really covered most of what I wanted to say, but I’ll add a little bit anyway.
In 2002, the median non-custodial father who paid child support, paid $300 a month (pdf file – see page 6). $300 a month doesn’t seem to me like an awe-inspiring amount of money for a typical non-custodial parent to pay.
More importantly, $300 a month – which is the typical amount custodial mothers receive in child support – is not an amount of money that needs to be accounted for; it’s safe to assume that, except in cases of extreme neglect, the child’s share of food, housing, utilities, car, and all those other things Kim (bv) mentioned add up to well over $300.
* * *
It costs taxpayer money to run things like voucher programs – more than it costs to simply write a check. If that money were being spent on something needed and worthwhile, then maybe I’d favor it. But considering that the typical non-resident father’s child support payment is only $300, I’m simply not convinced that there’s any real problem here to solve. The average custodial parent is spending well over $300 on the kid.
That leaves the problem of neglectful parents, of course. But if the parent really is neglecting her child, then why can’t we just use the laws against neglect to address this problem?
* * *
By the way, this State of Oregon report (pdf file) and this somewhat older paper both contain interesting facts about how much it costs to rear a child in the USA.
Last time I checked, child support wasn’t supposed to be alimony
When did you last check? Seriously?
Good lord. $300 a month???
My wife gets $1400 from her ex, for two kids. It seems like a reasonable amount; it covers their incidentals and makes up for the difference in the housing and transportation we need for a family of five vs. a family of three.
[AAAARRGH!
I just accidentally wiped out the rest of David’s post!
David, I swear, it wasn’t intentional; I just screwed up. I was replying to your post, but I accidentally did it in the field where your post was, rather than in the “new post” field. If you have a copy of your post, email it to me, and I’ll put it back up here.
I sincerely apologize for my mistake.
–Amp]