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!
As an incidental;
I’m writing from Michigan currently, my husband, daughter and I visiting my folks for the week. You’d think a vacation (especially with grandparents involved) would not be that big of a money sink, right? Let me break it down for you:
Grandma went and bought bubbles for Syd today, and some other toys and fun stuff. Awesome – Yay grandma, that’s what grandparents do.
Husband and I bought (unexpected cost as discussed prior):
– Baby wash – Grandma had bought shampoo but didn’t get any soap.
– Electrical outlet covers (baby-proofing)
– Cupboard bungie things that keep the cabinets inaccessible to curious toddlers.
– Infant sudafed for her ears to avoid having an ear issue like we did last time we came (which last visit cost us an unexpected 137.00 for additional non-covered insurance costs at the emergency room + several types of baby meds).
Today’s total for such expenses:
– 3.00 for the cupboard latch things, 3 packages of 2 (9.00 total).
– 2.00 for the electrical outlet shields.
– 2.00 for the baby body wash.
– 4.50 for the baby sudafed.
Grand Total: $17.50 on child.
Point: These sorts of expenses are incurred daily, and anyone needing a blow-by-blow nickel and dime breakdown of such expenses is not being ‘reasonable’, they are being controlling.
David (and others)
Did you not notice that Amanda is herself a child of divorce? And one who seems to have a pretty good relationship with her Dad. But oh no, she’s a woman so she couldn’t possibly know anything about the subject right?
Do any of you people actually listen to what the rest of us are saying?
Amanda, you’re a brave woman. You’ll probably be wading through hate mail for weeks.
Celia said
“For the most part, males of all ages have been relegated to second-class citizens who no longer have even basic civil rights. ”
Celia darling, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but men hold 90%+ of the senior positions in government, in industry, in finance…you know, the places where the real power is.
If that’s what constitutes a second class citizen with no civil rights then I will happily agree to swop places with them. I suspect that I wouldn’t be the only one.
Oh, and before you start accusing me of hating fathers, I adore my Dad and, at 31, still talk to him on a regular basis and still tell him I love him each and every time. As he tells me the same thing. This really isn’t about hating fathers, honestly.
Amanda
“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. ”
Actually, I think what they were hoping for is that the kids would be sleeping indoors in their warm beds and that Mom would be outside sleeping naked on the lawn. Oh, and she can use the car to drive the kids to school but she has to walk home. And she can buy enough food to make dinner for the kids but she doesn’t get to eat any of it. The neighbors might find it all a bit wierd and the kids might be bullied at school because of the emaciated, naked, generally pathetic Mom who picks them up from school (for which the ex has generously decreed that she may use the car that she left parked outside the school in the morning so that she would be sure not to spend the gas money during the day while the kids weren’t with her) but hey, at least the ex wouldn’t be spending any of HIS money on herself, right?
Does that just about sum up the situation that our FRA friends had in mind? Classy, guys, very classy.
David:
Regarding whether or not Jake has offered suggestions. It’s not Jake’s job to make your policy suggestion work, any more than it’s your job to make feminist policies work. Since Jake is arguing (if I understood him correctly) that the status quo is better than your suggestion, he doesn’t have to find a way to make your suggestion work, or suggest an alternative. You suggested the policy; logically, it’s up to you to refine and defend it, not Jake.
Speaking for myself, this whole “debit card” notion still looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. Since the typical monthly payment made by a nonresident father is around $300, it seems to me that we can safely assume that, apart from cases of extreme neglect, that the typical single-mother household is spending an amount on her child(ren) that’s larger than the typical child support award.
You’re also underestimating the difficulties of this debit card. How would what the debit card is used for be policed? If it’s after-the-fact, then someone needs to be paid to go over the debit card records every month and make sure it was only used for “approved” expenses. If it’s going to be policed “live” – that is, if the debit card will only be accepted and usable when it’s spent on the “right” thing – then you’re talking about a pretty huge bureocracy. Not only supermarkets, but banks, lenders, utility companies, schools, gas stations, doctors, bookstores, clothes stores, landlords, etc.., will all have to be convinced or induced to accept the debit card, and schooled in how to use it.
Have you ever been waiting in line in the grocery behind someone using TANF to buy groceries? I have, and sorting what is and isn’t allowed is a long and complex process,which majorly slows down service for everyone. Do we really want to export and expand that problem to every industry that a parent might have a legitimate expense in? In order to solve a problem that doesn’t appear to exist in any widespread fashion? It doesn’t seem worth it.
This really isn’t about hating fathers, honestly.
It isn’t about reality, either. They think that all feminists hate men and that men are the most abused creatures on the planet. This is quite the trick, considering the fact that they hold all the power. Explain that to me again?
There goes Aegis again, telling us what’s really going on in the world because it’s only stuff that he sees that exists. And there’s absoluting nothing wrong with being lectured by a nineteen-year-old.
David, this statement: 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.”?
…couldn’t be more sexist.
Yep, she’s vain, shallow, alcoholic, promiscuous, and loves her pets more than her kids.
I can’t imagine why guys who think stuff like this about women get divorced. I’m shocked, shocked that a woman wouldn’t want to raise kids with someone whose attitude toward her is so clearly liberated and inspiring.
But he wants polite control over how his ex spends hers money. Well, right up until the inevitable item on the list that he doesn’t want her to have.
Is that kind of like wanting to control a woman’s reaction to his demand for a kiss?
It’s obviously imposible to reason with some of you here. “Did I say those kinds of things would not be allowed, Or even a car repair not allowed?”
Point is, innocent spouse—someone’s not protesting too much, are they?—-that you or your hubbie want to be the one doing the controlling.
Can’t imagine why that’s not an attractive habit in a husband. I also can’t imagine why a woman looking at a guy acting like this wouldn’t wonder, “What if he divorces me?”
If your husband’s ex is truly spending all her time in a bar, why, exactly, hasn’t the hubbie gone to court about it? Oh, wait, lemme guess. It’s because the courts are so biased against men, even though most of the judges are men, and conservative men at that.
I wonder if anybody’s done a study of the divorce rate in second marriages in the FRA crowd.
I think we’re arguing apples and oranges again. Yes, there are irresponsible CPs who spend their money unwisely. Yes, there are extremely responsible CPs who are doing the best they can in a difficult situation. But also yes, there are responsible NCPs who are doing the best they can in a difficult situation and irresponsible NCPs who spend their money unwisely. One-size-fits-all solutions aren’t going to help when a responsible NCP is paired with an irresponsible CP, and vice versa.
But except in certain very limited ways, we can’t force people to be responsible adults. And we also to have to allow for some fun – the last time I looked, the “pursuit of happiness” was allowed for everyone, not just for people who aren’t in a divorced-with-children arrangements! As an exercise in U.S. government class once, we were given a typical welfare check and a typical TANF voucher packet and asked to budget for a family of four (one parent, three kids). What could we buy with this? It was amazing how punitive we were. If I remember correctly, our theoretical family could have a card table and folding chairs, three sets of clothing each, one place setting of dishes each, and so on. They were eating the absolute cheapest cuts of meat available, the almost-spoiled vegetables and fruit, bulk oatmeal, generic everything else. We got into arguments about whether or not they could have ice cream or animal crackers. The whole mind-set was that they didn’t deserve anything frivilous, ever, because they were using OUR tax dollars to live on. I think that’s pretty controlling, and I think most efforts for NCPs to demand an accounting for the child support payments come out of the same mindset.
I give up on the offering. There is no such thing obviously!
Demanding that your opponent in a debate come up with the details of the policy that you propose is a time-honored tactic of those who have no facts to back up their opinions & views of how things should be. All you need to do is wait for your opponent to ask for details of your vague policy & then you’re set.
David, the reason I ask about the cost of your CSDebitCard ™ program is because I want to know how it will be paid for. Will there be a surcharge added to all CS payments by NC parents? If there is a surcharge on CS payments, the cost as a percentage of CS becomes very, very important to you I would think. Or will it come out of the general budget so that I have to pay for you to have that much more control over your ex? Will this be a federal program? Or just a federally mandated program for which each state must pay?
The statements of you and other FRAs here makes me think that I care more about your kids than you do. I pay my taxes that provide things like public schools for your kids without complaining about my lack of control of how that money is spent. You, on the other hand, seem to be more concerned that the ex doesn’t have to consult you on how every penny is spent. Are your kids healthy, loved & well cared for? If so, I don’t understand what the problem is.
You’ve got nerve to get all pissy when somebody questions you about the feasability of a proposal that you made.
Squid
I had a lengthy post that, according to Amp, was inadvertently was deleted.
David writes: 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.”?
Look, the above are obvious choices for exclusion in a debit card program and would be incorporated into administrative rules. The card user is the only one who knows what is purchased so your control premise is invalid. I sincerly doubt that you think child support money should be for used cigarettes, liquor, porn, gambling, yachts, BMW SUVs, and new cosmetic boobs for mom but if you do, then you are exactly the kind of moron that justifies such a system.
And as for your comments about the posts you’ve read here being the best FRAs have to offer, they are appropriate coming from someone who thinks they are clever by sugesting there is a link between the mistreatment of children and taking Rover to the day spa… Stop embarrassing yourself.
I didn’t say anything about controlling my husbands ex. Nor does he. And where do you get off judging and picking apart every little thing I say?. I just want the money to go towards the kids. And no I don’t mean getting an itemized list of whatever. It would be casual like a check to walmart for school supplies. Assumption makes an ASS out of you. This is only a first start with this bill. I’ve sent it to senators and legislators that deal with these kinds of things to smooth out the details to make it FAIR FOR EVERYBODY. Our first amendment rights are being violated. and if you must know ginmar he did try to get his youngest to come live him to get her out of the situation and she refuses because all her cheerleading group is in the town where her mom lives. She doesn’t want to leave it. We live in another state. “Why don’t you try asking questions instead of going on ASSumptions?”
“And where do you get off judging and picking apart every little thing I say?”
Did someone force you to come here ? And aren’t you arguing for your own right to judge and pick apart someone else’s life ?
Want some cheese with your whine ?
Speaking of ASSumptions, innocent spouse, why do you assume that your husband’s ex isn’t using child support on the kids? Are they without clothes? Without food? Without school supplies? No toys? No bicycles? No extracurricular activities? Is the electricity or gas service to the house shut off on a regular basis? Because it seems to me that you want me to assume that the child support money is funding her drinking habits, rather than her own employment. Obviously, she must be spending some money on her children if her daughter is in cheerleading.
Yes I am arguing for my rights. I don’t think I was addressing you alsis.????
I’m just getting frustrated with a system that doesn’t care about the NCP rights or the rights of the children. I tell them his ex drinks their response “We don’t care what she spends it with”. WELL I DO!!!!. It’s supposed to go to the children. I think with the rise of drugs/alchohol in our society this is what we are headed for. I’ll ask a question. “Is it fair to be living in a motor park home in an RV with my husband because DSHS takes half of his pay because that is all we can afford to live in, While his ex lives in a mansion of a house and goes off to Hawaii with the kids for vacation?”
‘Is it fair to be living in a motor park home in an RV with my husband because DSHS takes half of his pay’
Well this would certainly be considered fair if they were together – why does the geographical location of your husband make this not fair? Do chi9ldren cost less when he is not around?
“…I don’t think I was addressing you, alsis…”
Oh, silly me. This being a board accessable to most anyone, I had this dopey idea that anyone could jump into a conversation even without express permission from you. You want a private conversation with no risk of input from the unwashed ? Try email. You want to rant with no one contradicting your POV ? Try a board that specializes in rants. Or start one.
I’m sorry if you feel that your spouses former wife is getting away with something that she shouldn’t, but I have the distinct feeling that if she were here, her story would be pretty different than yours. So excuse me for not taking your every word as gospel. Yeesh.
Actually his ex did ask us for $$$ for her cheerleading right after making a support payment, if you must know. We have proof that she is drinking it (oldest son told us). the oldest son is very close to his dad. There were times when she would call my husband and tell him “they are going to shutt off the electricity” in order to get more $. The point being about the RV park. We have a right as does any other american to live in a home that is of our choosing. “Would you want to have to live like that?”
Wait a second…. I think that innocentspouse is advocating for a communist society. Look, in our country, it is perfectly fair (under our economic & social rules) for one person to live in a mansion while another lives in a motor home park. If you tell me what part of the country you are in, I’ll point you to your local socialist party.
Here is the problem w/ the FRA folks, from my point of view. You either don’t trust the ex-spouse to take reasonable care of the kids (But you haven’t stated that the kids are hungry or sick or ill-cared for in any way. In fact, innocentspouse states that her husbands child wishes to stay with her mom. That points in the direction of satisfactory care.) Or you want the ex-spouse to have as little as you can force on them.
Here’s the thing. The custodial parent gets to decide how the money is spent. That is both the responsibility & privilege of being the custodial spouse. You don’t like it? Get joint custody or become the custodial spouse. If you can’t get that, be a parent and make sure that your kids needs are met – even if your only input is financial.
Oh, also, you are addressing everybody who is reading this thread.
Duh….. replace “spouse” w/ “parent” after those “custodial” mistakes of mine.
(rolling eyes), Oh please. I do not want a communistic society. I want OUR freedoms to be able to do things in life. We can’t even afford to go out for a movie. I want to wake up in the morning and be able to go shopping for new jeans that I so desperatly need. I wanted to be able to have children with my husband. Alas I would need medical intervention and cannot afford it. This just forces my husband to have to work under the table just so we can live. I’m not whining. I just want to have the same freedoms everybody else enjoys.
Speaking of communists, why am I being censored?
O.K. Thanks…
“We have proof she is drinking it (oldest son told us).”
So….she has no job, no inheritance, no source of income other than child support? Color me skeptical. I suppose it is possible, if your husband is an extraordinarily wealthy man, but then, you probably wouldn’t be living in a trailer park, would you?
I mean, it just doesn’t add up. I live in a city that has just about the most affordable housing in the nation for a city of its size (and has had for many years), and still it costs over $300 a month to live in a trailer park, and anywhere from between $1200-$1500 a month (not including property taxes!) to live in a well-tricked out 3-4 bedroom suburban home. This difference in cost would be even more magnified if it was a real “mansion”, or if we were talking about an area of the country with higher housing costs.
In other words, you’re pissed off that she’s better off than you both are and think that because she is, you should not have to contribute to the children’s support.
Sounds pretty shady to me.
David: There are a lot of reasons your post could be put into moderation. It could be that you used a word or character sequence that the computer thinks is associated with spammers. It could be that you changed some detail of your email address field, making it think that you’re a new poster (new posters need their first posts approved by a moderator).
As long as you can see your post and it says that it’s awaiting moderation, you haven’t been censored; it’s just that P-A and I don’t spend every minute of every hour online moderating “Alas.” If we decide not to allow your post through, the post will disappear entirely, rather than being marked “waiting for moderation.”
innocent spouse escrits: “Oh please. I do not want a communistic society. I want OUR freedoms to be able to do things in life.”
So, you don’t want EVERYBODY to have the freedom to live well. Just you. Thanks for the flat out statement that it is all about you and that the kids don’t mean shit. Color me unsympathetic.
“I just want to have the same freedoms everybody else enjoys.”
Here’s a newsflash for you, “innocent”: Even a lot of Americans who are childfree by choice are in the same boat as you are. Which means that it’s possible that there are other economic factors involved in your predicament than an irresponsible first wife who allegedly hits the sauce too much. Before you set her up as sole fall gal for your troubles, you might want to consider that.
BTW, you admit that your husband’s son doesn’t care for his mother, and that your knowledge of her supposed alcoholism comes mostly from him. Do you really think that by itself should be gospel proof to a bystander, much less a judge or juror ?
Oh Alisis, how could you imply such a thing! It is unheard of that a teenager would not get along with their custodial parent and attempt to use things they know are irritants as leverage points with the non-custodial parents to manipulate a situation. Such a thing could never, and would never happen!
Well, Kim, drawing on my own experience as a child of an “unbroken” home, I’m not even sure that dynamic is limited to children of divorce. Ahem. :o But, of course, only my siblings tried to play Mom and Dad off each other. *I* was a perfect angel.
Squid says: “Here’s the thing. The custodial parent gets to decide how the money is spent.”
That’s right, Squid, the CP can decide to buy groceries or gamble the money away at the track. Do you get it???? That’s what you choose to defend??? So much for your “best interests of the child” arguments.
Of course, suggesting that this might not be the best use of support money, in your view, makes one a communist, in ill-informed FRA, a controlling NCP, a vindictive ex-spous. etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.
All this AND pearls of wisdom on the art of “debate” from you…
I find it very telling that it “she”, the ex-wife, is the one who is living too luxoriously. Not a single note about the fact that the children are living in an equal level of luxory.
Oh, and by the by David, “Communist” and “socialist” aren’t insults on this board :)
Innocent spouse, are the children fed? Do they have clothing? Schoolbooks? Is there heat in their home? If they have all these things, then clearly some money is being spent on them, and it isn’t all going to drink.
On the other hand, if they don’t have all these things, I don’t understand why you haven’t reported her for child neglect.
That said, I do have sympathy for your situation. It sucks that you don’t have money for basics like clothing and (especially) medical care. And it’s true that having to pay child support when you’re poor sucks.
What state do you live in? Did the judge follow the state’s child support guidelines when deciding on your husband’s child support, or did the judge bump up from the standard guidelines for some reason?
Keep in mind, lots of people who don’t have to pay child support also have trouble affording basics. We need universal health care for everyone, not just people who pay child support.
* * *
Also, the point someone (maybe Innocent Spouse) made before about after-tax versus pre-tax income for calculating child support makes more sense than I had previously thought, at least in Oregon.
In Oregon, the court adds up the incomes of both parents and calls that the total income size. Then, based on how many kids are in the household, the court says “in a typical household with X kids, % of total household income goes to child rearing.”
So let’s say there’s one kid; Dad makes $30,000 a year, Mom makes $20,000 a year; and the judge says for a household like theirs, it’s typical to spend 40% – in this case, $20,000 – on the kids. Mom has custody. Of the $50,000 total income in this family, 60% is earned by Dad. So the court orders Dad to pay child support of $12,000 a year (or $1000 a month) – that is, 60% of $20,000.
That leaves Dad with $18,000 a year to live on, and Mom & kid with $32,000 a year to live on. That may seem harsh, but it’s not unfair; the purpose is not to keep Mom and Dad even; the purpose is to give the child an approximation of the economic opportunities she would have had if her parents hadn’t divorced.
But now imagine that Dad is paying 25% of his income in taxes, and Mom (who gets to claim the kid as a dependent, and maybe even to benefit from EITC) pays 10%. That means the post-tax income for Dad is $22,500, of which $12,000 goes to Mom, leaving Dad with $9,500 to live on for a year. Meanwhile, Mom and kid (whose post-tax income is $18,000) have $30,000 to live on for a year.
If the original idea behind Oregon’s formula – that each parent should pay a proportion of child rearing expenses proportional to their income – is fair, then the situation I’ve described is unfair; what’s being spent is disproportionate to actual income. Calculating CS based on post-tax income might be more fair, because it would be based on how much income the parties actually have, rather than on a theoretical gross income.
innocent spouse,
Since you’ve chosen to share some details of your personal life, I hope you don’t mind if I ask some personal questions you can feel free to ignore. What I am most curious about is whether you knew the financial situation when you married the guy. Presumably he was paying child support when you got involved, right? Did you just assume that would go away? Or was your husband not entirely honest about the situation? My husband was not totally honest about his debt situation when we got married (he was under the delusion that he could pay off the debt before I found out about it), so I know it happens with the best of them.
I am also reeling a bit at the idea that the ex-wife is living in a mansion and taking vacations to Hawaii on hubby’s cash while the ex-husband is living in an RV park. I’ve never seen that happen in real life, and the only time I’ve ever heard of it was with an FRA who freely admits he deliberately quit his job and now works for cash only in order to avoid making his child payments. Why would the courts order a man to support his wife in a mansion when he can barely make ends meet, even when you say he is taking payment under the table (meaning his child support is based on a lower income than he actually has, plus he isn’t paying taxes or SS on some percentage of his income)? For that matter, if he made enough to afford the mansion in the first place, why is he living in an RV? What happened to the job that presumably supported that lifestyle? It all seems very odd to me.
Finally, I wonder if you’re aware that living in an RV court can be a rather pricey approach to life. Since your husband is not opposed to moving away from his kids, you might do better moving to a small town in the midwest and buying a house. Plenty of RVs cost more than my house did (my house cost 36,000), plus you have to pay lot and hookup fees. Unless you insist on living in a fancy suburb, you can live pretty well in many midwest cities or towns on not so much. We’ve got a five bedroom, two-story house with a full basement and yard for $36,000 and a big field next door we picked up for $1,500. Plus you can generally get a longer-term loan for a house than for an RV, which means lower payments per month (and paying more money long term, of course, but OTOH you can pay over each month, and pay off the loan faster, in which case it can be a pretty good deal).
I have some sympathy for your situation, because my cousin has been paying child support on three kids for years, and their mom is a sometime drug addict and an all-around dead beat (everyone begged him not to marry her in the first place). But I don’t have a lot of sympathy for your *attitude*, because, again, my cousin has been paying child support on three kids for years, even though he is quite sure than child number three isn’t even his (her adultery was what finally convinced him to get the divorce). He could have insisted on DNA testing so he wouldn’t have to pay for child number three, but first off it wasn’t the kid’s fault his mom was an idiot, second the kid knows no dad but my cousin, and third my cousin knows that the money he gives for child number three ends up helping children numbers one and two.
He does keep a close watch on the situation (with the help of his family when he’s had jobs that involved travel) and is in frequent contact with the social worker on the case. But the thing is, he puts his kids first. I admire him for that. And I have never, ever heard him whine about his ex-wife. My aunt does, but my cousin? Never. That woman is the mother of his children, and even though the marriage didn’t work out, he’s going to do everything he can to keep the relationship cool and to keep in contact with his children.
When I compare his attitude with those of some FRAs I’ve run across on the Internet, the FRAs come off very badly. And financially? My cousin is thriving. I can’t speak as to your husband, of course, but I honestly believe that many FRAs whose situations I’ve read up on would do far better to just give up on trying to control their ex-wife and get on with their lives. All the energy they waste trying to control the ex-wife is energy they can’t use to get better jobs or otherwise improve their own situation. The bitter FRAs (and I will assume this is not every FRA) are hurting themselves as much, and I suspect sometimes even more, than they are hurting the ex-wife.
Antigone, it sounded like everyone in Innocent Spouse’s story was fighting over crumbs. That’s the really sad part. Someone else, not mentioned in the story, is getting the cake.
Innocent, are you suggesting that moving the kids in and trying to find space for them and paying for all their things will improve your financial situation?
If you read the way Squid used “communist” you would know it was derrogatory – and I criticized no one for being a socialist, god bless them. :)
Thank you Amp, understood. Sorry.
Regarding the tax deduction for child support, a lot of people disagreed with me on that. I have to admit, I haven’t thought through the details of how it should be done. But it seems to me unfair that only one parent gets to claim the child (or children) as a dependent for tax purposes, when both are paying to support the child.
It’s an established part of our tax system that we try to help out parents by reducing their tax load. I can’t think of any principled reason for the tax system to help out custodial parents but not non-custodial parents (assuming the NCP is paying child support).
David, I think it’s usual on this board to refer to Jake Squid as “Jake” or perhaps “Mr. Squid,” not as “Squid.”
Yes, that’s what I choose to defend. See, we have judges to decide who gets to be the CP. We trust that those judges have good judgement & that, in the vast majority of cases, they will choose the parent most likely to take the best care of the child. That is part of the basis of our system of government. Sure, a reasonable person can disagree with a judges decision – but I don’t see how your vague and undefined Debit Card program rectifies the inevitable wrong decisions that do & will occur. I see that it imposes large restrictions on every custodial parent at a large financial cost.
I choose to defend the right of the custodial parent to decide how CS money is spent with the knowledge that if they are not caring for the child that they will be reported & the situation rectified if there is proof of such neglect.
What makes one a communist is innocentspouse’s remark that I quoted. What you are advocating is a dictatorship of non-CP over CP. I am firmly on the side of freedom and so I am firmly against you.
>>It’s an established part of our tax system that we try to help out parents by reducing their tax load. I can’t think of any principled reason for the tax system to help out custodial parents but not non-custodial parents (assuming the NCP is paying child support). >>
Ah. Then I misunderstood. There’s a difference between making CS payments–that is, your entire financial contribution to the raising of your child–tax-deductible, and allowing NCP’s to take a tax deduction because they have a dependent. The former would provide disparate support tilted way too far in favor of NCP’s, unless CP’s also get to deduct all of their child-related expenses (“Let’s see…does the zoo count as ‘educational purposes?’…”). The latter doesn’t seem unfair.
Ampersand- I think you worded accuratly what I was trying to convey. If they would just go by after taxes pay it would be more fair. And it just so happens we are talking OR state. We don’t live in an RV park anymore. We have a house that we cannot make the payments on now. At the time she was living with her then new spouse in a mansion of a house.While we were going more broke. Yes I guess you could say I’m angry at her and resentful. She is vindictive and tries anything she can to get what ever she can from my husband.What is more scary is that they had figured the $565 a month for four kids when my husband was working minimum wage. Now there are two kids he pays support for in the same amount. Even when we tried to get it modified the State refused to look at our situation. So yes I’m feeling slighted and angry and like my constitional rights have been violated.
Giving a child deduction to both parents? Sounds fair, but like mythago said earlier, this would create a marriage penalty. Also, how many divorced parents spend 50/50 time with their kids? So…if giving both parents a partial deduction based on custodial time would be the only “fair” solution, I see a nightmare of litigation and bureaucracy if this idea went anywhere.
Meanwhile, here’s the Illinois formula:
one child: 20% of net income
two children: 28% of net income
three children: 32% of net income
four children: 40% of net income
five children: 45% of net income
six or more children: 50% of net income
Seems fairer to base support on the net income of the parent, rather than a hypothetical dual income or the gross income. I know a lot of folks who have gripes about their exes, but child support doesn’t make the list for too many, because of the way the formula is set up.
A big problem is the inability to seperate the horrible emotions common in divorce from what is best for the children. While I understand the intense hurt and, yes, sometimes hate that exists in ex-spouses, I will not advocate a system designed to extend that hate in such a way that it adversely effects the children. And, from the comments here, it looks to me as if the FRA folks care a whole lot more about inflicting pain on the ex than they care about the well-being of their children.
Not one of the commenters here coming from the FRA view have expressed concern about the well-being of their children. Not one has claimed that their children are being harmed by the custodial parent. They have expressed concern only that their ex may be using some CS money for themselves, or that their ex is an addict. They have produced no evidence that this is the case. They have produced no evidence that their children are being neglected or abused. It sounds to me like they are suffering from extreme emotional distress at the idea that they may be helping a person that they now hate. They are quite possibly hurting their own children in the effort to inflict damage on thier ex. It may well be that some counseling would help them deal better with their emotions.
While I have sympathy for people suffering from those emotions, I think that they are expressing a willingness to negatively impact a huge number of people so that they can have their small bit of vengeance on a single person who hurt them emotionally in the past. I cannot and I will not support such a thing.
Thinking more about it, I’m not sure that FRA is all about power and control. I think that power & control are a means to vengeance for emotional pain past & present. But it does provide a clear example of exactly how equal men and women are today in the USA. By that I mean that, because of strong cultural gender roles, most of the time the mother becomes the CP and the father pays CS. As such, I have to believe that there are an equal amount of CP’s in deep emotional pain as there are NCP’s. Given that, I think that there are probably as many women who believe that NCP’s should pay more and have less say in the lives of their children. But you don’t see any organized movement and you don’t see talk radio hosts representing the MRA’s, do you? Might that be because men wield most of the economic and political power in this country?
Well, it’s a thought.
Well, we feminist conspirators do our best work in secret, Jake. You know, just like the worldwide cabal of Jewish bankers. That’s why we don’t really need equal pay or better representation in elected offices. We already run everything, don’t you know…
Shhhhhh. Ixnay on the ewishjay ankersbay.
Ohohoho, I’m telling Matt so he can read this and then activate the EoZ brain link and upload the heresy! BUSTED.
Huh. I’m starting to think that some of these angry second partners might be onto something. . .
Next time I date a guy with a kid from a previous relationship, I will ask his ex to be my scapegoat. I will pay her generously for it (and that money will be used expressly for her own gratification–manicures/pedicures, massages, slutty nights at the clubs, whatevah). When things don’t go right in my life or my guy’s life, I’ll blame her. If the scapegoat pay is generous enough, I’m sure she won’t mind if I post about her alleged drinking, mansion-living ways all over cyberspace.
As to the copies of checks–I don’t write checks. I use a debit card, and I’ll be damned if anyone–even an ex-husband and his angry new squeeze–has the right to look at my personal financial business. If that’s the case, then how about we rifle through your records when you scream poormouth?
What alsis and shiloh said. It’s not as if people without kids don’t have financial problems, and it’s rather odd that someone who had a job that paid for a mansion before cannot afford a bloody condo or ranch home. And really, you had no idea that he had kids and CS payments?
If any guy I was involved with talked smack about his ex as much as the FR scamps do, I’d be gone. Gone. I don’t expect anyone to like their exes, and I certainly don’t expect anyone who’s hurt or angry to never complain about their ex. But Jesus–to whine about supporting your kids? Come on. To make such bitterness a large part of your life–to the point where the kids will get hurt? To be so obsessed with your SO’s ex–to own his conflicts with her to such an extent? That’s sad. Not to mention tedious.
Make no mistake about it, the kids are the ones who get hurt by this BS. Every single divorced parent or second partner who swears up and down that they don’t show any negativity towards the ex around the kids is deluding themselves. The kids pick up on it. They overhear you. And frankly, a lot of people just talk smack and think it’s being oh-so-reasonable, because it’s the “truth” and the ex “deserves” it, and who cares that maybe it puts the kids in the middle? They walk into the house and hear the muttererd comments, see the looks, and catch the ‘tude. It’s because of you that your poor father and I are broke all the time. Don’t give me the crap that really, your beef is with their mother–that’s their mother, they live with her, and it’s that money you’re complaining about that puts the clothes on their back and the food on their table. They’ll do the math, and they’ll come to the conclusion rather quickly that they are the cause of all this trouble.
Trust me, chances are good they’ve got more loyalty towards her than you. She’s their mother. I didn’t get along with my mother very well when I was younger, but if anyone trashed her, they’d have gotten a swift drop kick to the head.
You’re putting these kids in the middle, making them defensive for their custodial parent, making them conflicted and anxious and angry. It’s not a great way to welcome them, or treat them. And it’s not a particularly convincing way to show us that really, you’re concerned about the children.
“We don’t care what she spends it with”?.
Really? I’m sure that’s totally accurate, honest.
WELL I DO!!!!. It’s supposed to go to the children. I think with the rise of drugs/alchohol in our society this is what we are headed for. I’ll ask a question. “Is it fair to be living in a motor park home in an RV with my husband because DSHS takes half of his pay because that is all we can afford to live in, While his ex lives in a mansion of a house and goes off to Hawaii with the kids for vacation?”?
So his ex lives in a mansion and you guys live in a trailor park—-and the ex has the kids? But you’re bitter because it’s all….going to the kids like you say you want it?
Yeah, that makes sense. Except it makes about as much sense as that whole thing where you freaked out over someone picking apart your comments while….endorsing picking part someone’s budget.
Jake Squid writes: “We trust that those judges have good judgement & that, in the vast majority of cases, they will choose the parent most likely to take the best care of the child.”
First, you demonstrate an exquisite misunderstanding of the workings of family court. At the end of the day, being male is the biggest obstacle fathers face in family court. Such “trust” is certainly shown to be inconsistent as it is feminists who are quick to question the judgment of any judge that would grant custody to a father (or joint custody). Examine your own bias: Under what instances do you think a father should get joint custody?
Second, it unfortunate that you think of CPs as “…more likely to take the best care the child.” The implication of course is that NCPs are less likely to take the best care of the child. This is an unnecessary stigmatization based on a flawed stereotype. I urge your to re-examine this viewpoint as it certainly leads to corrupt and flawed ideas many fathers.
Yes, that is indeed the implication. You want to lay blame for mothers being more likely to be named the CP? Look at the gender roles enforced by our culture that place men as breadwinners & women as childraisers.
When should men (or more accurately, the non- CP) get joint custody? When the divorcing parents are able to interact on a civil and non-hostile level and when the non-CP is a competent parent. If the parents cannot act together in the best interests of the child (because of hostility & emotions attendant to their divorce) one parent needs to be the one to make the decisions. That would be the custodial parent.
Do you think that you and your ex could get along well enough to make decisions for your children together? It doesn’t sound like it from your comments here.
The 2nd wives thing really blows my mind–when I explained the whole thing to my dad, he was confused, because his 2nd wife and my mom get along really well. Of course, his 2nd wife has a kid from the 1st marriage and she and he have been trying to get $30,000 of back child support from her ex-husband, so she’s not really going to complain about my dad’s prompt payment of his to my mom. Well, when we were kids, of course.
Do you have any reasonably objective (i.e., peer-reviewed or the like) evidence to support this claim?
A book that I’ve seen many FRAs recommend is Dividing the Child, which is by two well-regarded scholars. However, what they conclude is that the evidence doesn’t show one way or the other that there’s a bias in family courts:
In the “vast majority” of cases, the court doesn’t make the decision; the parents jointly agree on mother-custody, most of the time. In the small minority of cases that are actually decided by a court, if a father puts up a legal fight, he tends to get custody about half the time or more. (Trish Wilson has more on this subject).
Back to David’s post….
David, isn’t that the primary thing the “best interest of the child” standard claims to be based on – which living situation would most benefit the child?
I think that, if all else is equal, a case where the father and mother can get along well and both want joint custody, is a case where both parents should get joint custody.
If all else is equal, and the father did more of the actual caretaking work, then I think the father should get primary or sole custody.
Amanda Writes:
June 7th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
” 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, I’ve respectfully asked you for direction several times, regarding your offerings. I see NO writings from you offering a way for men or women to minimize damage, form post-divorce relationships with children that are productive, and not get taken for every dollar they’re worth by lawyers.
It doesn’t exist, you just said that to make your opinion look fair for your enemy, we’ve observed your comments and now know that your opinion (which wavers frequently depending on who you lash at) is only meant to engage in conflict. You have helped me form my opinion of feminists and I thank you.
I just can’t make up my mind whether I feel sorrier for sad plight of the “men are second-class citizens at the mercy of evil feminists” folks or the “We christians are persecuted martyrs at the mercy of evil secular humanists” folks. Personally, I blame it all on the fluoride in the water.
I’ve not read the book, although “We have found that although mothers receive sole physical custody in the vast majority of cases….” The authors then launch into intellectual supposition…
“… even though the overall ratio among conflicted cases is closer to 2 to 1 in favor of mothers demonstrates neither the presence nor the absence of gender bias.” The authors finally conclude that they were unable to confirm or eliminate bias as a possible explanation of their research on OUTCOMES. The difficulty researchers have is that family courts, unlike other courts, are more like administrative agencies, keep much information non-public and difficult to obtain, often leave no record of their proceedings and keep few statistics on their decisions. One could look at census estimates that there are about 11,000,000 custodail mothers and 3,000,000 custodial fathers and not be able to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. I didn’t just wake up one day and decide that courts were biased. I became an FRA after my experience. I discovered thousands and thousands of fathers that had similar experiences. If you need more information I suggest you inquire of a reputable father’s rights organization such as the American Coalition of Father’s and Children.
“David, isn’t that the primary thing the “best interest of the child”? standard claims to be based on – which living situation would most benefit the child?”
Yes, and the Patriot Act is only for our own good, right? My point is, this concept gives family court the power to summon and impose their orders on citizens who have committed no legal transgression. If you doubt that institutionalized discrimination exists where broad mandates and unrestricted powers are given, go to the airport with your Arab friends.
“I think that, if all else is equal, a case where the father and mother can get along well and both want joint custody, is a case where both parents should get joint custody.”
Unfortunately not all else is equal. Couples capable of this kind of cooperation don’t ever end up in court. You’ve probably heard NCPs complain that the children were used as bargaining chips to obtain favorable financial settlements. Someone intent on this kind of behavior has a ready made forum, family court. It’s often the worst of the worst. This is why believe presumed joint custody will lower their divorce rates.
Oh, my God, he just compared family court and its decisions to the Patriot Act.
TJ, just because you don’t like what I said doesn’t mean it’s not there. 1) Don’t find excuses to sue your ex. 2) If you weren’t the primary caregiver, accept that you will not get primary custody 3) Don’t demand joint custody to keep things “fair”, because that’s not fair to your children 4) Pay your child support 5) Don’t try to get control in exchange for child support 6) Don’t talk shit about your ex 7) Be on time and congenial during visitation.
As a bonus piece of advice, something my dad did with aplomb: 8) Look for opportunities to relieve your ex’s burden. She’s a single mother and that’s not easy to do, so try to help. Schedule visitations so that she can have time to herself or real dates without children around. If you are sincere, odds are she’ll do the same for you. Help them move if they need the help. Be polite and gracious to your ex-in-laws. Don’t date women who want to be enemies of your ex-wife and make it clear to the women you date that your children come first. (That’ll weed out the sorts who want to cut back on your child support payments so they have more household money.) Don’t nickel and dime visitation–if your kids are busy this month, try to just get an extra visit in next month. Be flexible–these are kids, not bank accounts.
Well, none of that will give you the satisfaction of fucking with your ex, but it will create a solid, loving relationship with your children. Your choice!
If you doubt that institutionalized discrimination exists where broad mandates and unrestricted powers are given, go to the airport with your Arab friends.
Wow. Come down off the cross, David.
David, I read tons of that material; I’ve attended FR meetings; I know the claims very well.
However, I also know that there are all sorts of similar anecdotes – and that’s all you have, anecdotes – from mothers talking about how courts are biased and sexist against them. Why should I consider anecdotal data from father’s rights activists dispositive, while ignoring similar anecdotal data from mothers?
Logically, I don’t think it’s possible to say that we know for sure one way or the other from the evidence that’s out there. If you have any non-anecdotal evidence from a legitimate source that contradicts my view, please link to it.
Virtually any other concept – including presumed joint custody, which it appears you favor – would have the same effect.
I don’t doubt that institutionalized discrimination often exists, as a matter of abstract theory. However, that doesn’t prove that it does exist in the particular case of family courts; and it doesn’t prove anything about which direction the discrimination runs.
Yes, I have. And I’ve heard the exact same complaint from CPs. Again, I don’t see why I should credit either claim above the other.
Your bemusement at David’s rhetorical whinging would be more credible if you didn’t do the same kind of thing.
Amp, I actually think that the idea of tax breaks for the NCP (ie them being able to claim the chold as a dependent) would be a great idea IF you make it contingent on them actually paying their child support. That way it’s fairer AND it provides the NSP with an incentive to pay the chold support.
Of course I’m not well versed in tax law so there may be a problem here I don’t know about, but in principle I’m not seeing any good reason not to do this.
However, I think that the debit card system is a terrible idea. Firstly because it would require a large and expensive bureaucracy to run it, and I suspect that the money to pay for it would be taken from some other welfare program, and funding is pretty thin on the ground as it is. More importantly IMHO, I suspect that such a system would end up stigmatising both the kids and the CP. Have you ever watched the way people react to someone using food stamps at the supermarket? I wouldn’t want any kids of mine, or an ex even if I hated them, to be on the receiving end of that. There’s enough stigma attached to divorce anyway, why do anything that might make it worse?
Oh, and what Shiloh said. The level of venom coming from most of ths FRA folks I see is amazing. I’m confused as to why any woman would marry a man this angry. to be quite honest, I’d be afraid that a guy like this would either lash out at me in anger, or end up just repeating the same pattern. I’d be scared to live in the same house with someone expressing this much hostility towards women. Also, you know the old saying that if someone will cheat with you, they’ll cheat on you too? Seems like the same analogy might work too. Wht makes the new wife think that hubby won’t do the same thing to her further down the line?
Honestly, the more FRAs I see the more I love my Dad. And I don’t care if that sounds dorky.
Perhaps this is a false dichotomy? Couldn’t some judges in some courts in some areas have anti-father bias, while anti-mother bias could exist in other contexts?
Why can’t you credit both? Perhaps CPs and NCPs are simply talking about different aspects of bias in the system that exist simultaneously.
Injustice against fathers must be corrected regardless of the existence or prevalence of injustice against mothers, and vice versa. It’s not a zero sum game. The point is that the injustices get fixed, not to find out who has it harder. If it was true that fathers experienced less discrimination in family courts than mothers, I would have no trouble admitting this as long as the discrimination was fixed.
Opps, I meant Sheelzebub in the previous posting. Though yeh, what shiloh, alsis and Jake said too.
Ampersand says: “Logically, I don’t think it’s possible to say that we know for sure one way or the other from the evidence that’s out there.”
Logically it is possible, and sorry to rain on your belief system, I do know for sure that what I say about family court is true despite your attempt to discredit my personal experience.
I understand that in saying we just can’t know whether I am right or wrong that you are trying to prove me wrong. But you’re claiming lack of evidence while quickly sweeping legitimate evidence under the rug. With regard to annecdotes, they can function quite legitimately as evidence and although I’m not a scientist it seems perfectly logical, if not scientific, to form a conclusion about the credibility, or truthfulness, of individual annecdotes. Given enough annecdotes from credible sources it is possible to form logical conclusions from the similarity between such annecdotes that arose independent of each other. Given enough credible annecdotes that originated independent of each other that all describe similarly the same phenomna, a logical conclusion is not only possible but likely accurate.
“I don’t doubt that institutionalized discrimination often exists, as a matter of abstract theory.”
Good. This will be helpful in following this blog. :)
So, David, do you and the ex get along well enough that the two of you could jointly make decisions about your child’s welfare?
As to anecdotal evidence… I suggest you take a look here:
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/anecdotal.asp
(if Amp wants to make that a real link, go right ahead)
or go to wikipedia (and also read about logical fallacies).
Despite what may seem logical to you, anecdotal evidence does not support a position in a debate. Go to those sites and learn something about what is generally accepted as evidence.
(Oh, gosh! There I go again lecturing you about the rules of debate! Maybe if you’d bother to check these things out the rest of us wouldn’t have to repeat this over and over.)
This is not to say that what you claim happened to you did not happen. It’s just that what happened to you proves nothing except what happened to you.
Oh, cool. It became a link on its own. In that case…
David read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
BritGirlSF: The reason I don’t think we’ll be seeing child support as a tax deduction anytime soon, is because it provides a huge marriage penalty. Married parents (or single parents who don’t receive child support) can’t deduct the cost of most expenses connected with child raising. Think about it—only a tiny portion of daycare costs are allowed as a deduction. Until we are ready as a society to allow all parents to deduct the cost of raising their children, child support isn’t going to be deductible. There’s too many people who see children as a punishment, to allow that to happen.
Of course, it could be structured to give each parent a partial deduction, but that would be another maze of litigation and bureaucracy, as contentious parents would either be hauling their asses into court in an attempt to get a bigger slice of the pie, or angry parents who have the lion’s share of the custody (and expenses) would be howling at politicians about the unfairness of one parent getting a 50% deduction while only paying for and/or having the kids 20% of the time. It would sure keep some family law attorneys busy.
I’m bothered by the idea that there has to be some “incentive” to pay child support. Call me Old School, but damn! isn’t the child enough of an incentive?! I mean, that’s your duty as a parent—married or single.
In dedication to the many good peoples I know. Men and women.
Julian Epsom, (Number 27) sorry to take so long to reply. Exam time. What I meant by that remark was that the patriarchs (and matriarchs for that matter) dont give a toss about you or I. And please, all comments are generalisations as space is limited.
Whilst males and females argue about agendas placed by political minorities hoping to gain power at the expense of all others, those at the top can keep screwing the rest of us. All of us, male and female. There is an attitude out there from many women that they have it all over men and they like that(men know it too). Whilst these women are basking in that glow the rights of younger women to be stay at home mums is eroding(except for those with money).
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums and this has suited governments right down to the ground. Well done girls. The sisterhood lives. Just seems to me (dare I say it) that it has been the patriarchs the feminists have been in bed with all the time, despite demanding thier supporters not to sleep with the enemy.
There are many, perhaps even a majority of women from the vast anti-male feminist cohort (yes I know feminists have done a lot of good. Opening the debate on family violence was one such thing) who are very smug about the harm they have done to men and boys.
They (behave as if they) think it is good and right to harm someone because of his maleness. They do not look at the harm being done to themselves as aggressive and spiteful human beings nor the damage they do to children or innocent, decent males.
Children are viewed by the courts as material possesions, despite all the rhetoric. The system is set up to treat them this way, by pitting females against males and the most damaging and hurtful tactic is to use false allegations. As much as they want to disown this, the feminists in positions of power support this behaviour. Despite the good feminism has achieved,women still see men as primarily a means to an end and unfortunately this extends to children and all household goods. This is the staus quo.
This applies to a (thankfully shrinking) large % of lawyers. By the very nature of thier work, they are required to uphold the status quo (unless you are wealthy enough for them to find another status quo).They want points on the board. Thats thier worth. I am hopefull that there is a growing army of decent lawyers who wish to see the damage stop.
Untill feminism as a whole is willing to permit its own analysis upon itself and female behaviour (particularly abusive behaviour), it remains the subjective model that has underpinned it since the 1970s. As stated by feminists surrounding the advocacy of the domestic violence refuges in the past; if they did thier job properly there would be no need for them in the future. Obviously they have not done thier job properly and that is not hard to understand.
They have become the very things they despised in the beginning; supporters of the status quo and supporters of family abuse (consciously or not)and supporters of power. They have things to buy and bills to pay.They dont want to lose thier jobs in the domestic violence industry.
So to all you angry, anti-male feminist dinosaurs out there, you will be made to take responsibility at some stage. Unfortunately many of you will have died from old age by then and will have missed the opportunaty to grow and be happy, decent and balanced human beings. Of course the damage you have created will continue long after your passing.
I dont want to return to the 50s, nor to the 70s, where many feminists still reside, but I do want a future for our children that allows them time to grow and be respected for thier honesty and courage(two areas undermined by overprotective moddycodling and arresting of freedom of spirit). Here the feminists too have been at thier destructive best, telling boys they are predisposed to being horrible people and telling girls they are predisposed to being fantastic no matter how they behave or treat other people. It is amazing to think that a movement that prided itself on protecting those with less power could be so nasty to innocent children.
Lets pray the mens movement does not head down the path of hate that the womens movement has. Good people, be vigilant. It is not about payback. Thats a bitchy thing.
Hope I have touched a few raw nerves. It is much needed.
Jake Squid.
It seems to hold some importance to you how my ex and I get along… why is that?
I’m glad you’ve done some recent research on logical fallacies and anecdotes. Remember this little gem of yours:
Jake Squid: “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?”
If you want to hold all bloggers, including YOURSELF to formal rules of debate I would be more than happy to oblige. You’ve already demonstrated you can’t “debate” your way out of a wet paper bag.
And your’re right, what happened to Rosa Parks proves nothing except what happened to Rosa Parks. It’s just an anecdote. You’re just making this too easy. Maybe you should check out footinyourmouth.com.
Good Day
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums and this has suited governments right down to the ground. Well done girls. The sisterhood lives.
So you mitigate domestic parents that are feminists to the status of no-voice, by pretty much assuming that all the folks commenting here that are not buying into the systematic discrimination of family courts as anti-male and extremist?
That is hardly the case by any means. I know for a fact that many of the people posting in this thread are both feminists and extremely dedicated parents. The difference I keep seeing popping up is one of devotion to the well being of the child in a way that supercedes petty adult disputes over finances.
Earlier someone commented on people viewing the responsibility to support their children as needing ‘incentive’, and then pointed out quite rightfully that the children’s well being should be more than incentive enough.
I’ve not read on this thread any ncp’s saying; “I’ve attempted several times to speak to my ex about the concerns and hopes I have with regards to how some of the money is allocated and they simply refuse to allow me any input in the day to day upbringing of my child!” – I’d actually be far more sympathetic if the problem was clearly one of the ncp’s attempting to respectfully deal with their ex’s and the ex’s being unwilling to listen. I’d also, however, expect the ncp’s to keep proper recordings of any genuine concerns, and a concerted and contineous effort to solve things in the best interests of their children.
David,
When somebody calls a foul, it’s probably best to say, “Ooops, sorry.” And move on within the commonly accepted rules of the game.
The reason that it is important to me how you and your ex get along is because of your strong feeling that you should have equal say in the raising of your child. How the two of you interact has everything to do with whether or not that is possible.
Please explain how my question about paying for your kid’s dog to be groomed is a logical fallacy. If you can do that, I will admit my mistake.
I have given you my honest opinion of what I have seen you write. When this thread started, I was pretty open to hearing what an FRA might have to say. My mind was not made up on the issue. Now it is.
And yes, what happened to Rosa Parks (or Abraham Lincoln or the biblical Abraham or you or me or anybody else), when held as proof of something only proves what happened to Rosa Parks (or Abraham Lincoln or the biblical Abraham or you or me or anybody else). That doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen or that it is unimportant. It just means that it is not enough evidence to support a side of a debate.
Did you read either of the links on anecdotal evidence? Just in case actually reading a link is too much trouble, let me quote Wikipedia here for you.
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence that has not been empirically tested, and which is used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing.
For example, someone who is not a physician or other kind of expert might argue that eating crushed garlic and drinking one glass of red wine per day will prolong your life, just because their own neighbour indulged in that habit and died aged 90. It becomes clear that in this case any form of inductive reasoning lacks a broad empirical basis.
Similarly, a politician might publicly demand better teacher training facilities just because their own son or daughter happens to have a spectacularly incompetent teacher.
This is not to say that anecdotal evidence is fallacious per se; it just depends on how it is used. In many cases, it can be the starting point rather than the result of scientific investigation.”
Edit: The difference I keep seeing popping
Meant to type: The difference I keep see popping. Blargh.
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums and this has suited governments right down to the ground. Well done girls.
This is bullshit. I’m sorry, but this is bullshit. Many feminists became feminists because of the contempt for motherhood. Great case of projection there.
The sisterhood lives. Just seems to me (dare I say it) that it has been the patriarchs the feminists have been in bed with all the time, despite demanding thier supporters not to sleep with the enemy.
Uh, yeah. Where do you get this shit? Your ass?
There are many, perhaps even a majority of women from the vast anti-male feminist cohort (yes I know feminists have done a lot of good. Opening the debate on family violence was one such thing) who are very smug about the harm they have done to men and boys.
Oh, give me a fucking break. Like men need any help at all. Take a look at Congress, Karl. Then cry me a river. Seriously. You don’t get one toy on your christmas list and it’s probably the f ault of a feminist.
No anti-feminist has ever done any good for anybody but herself–and for men who are desperate to believe they’re victims.
La Luba
My point was that if the CP does in fact get to claim the kids as a deductible (as people here have stated) then it seems logical that the NCP should be able to do so as well IF they pay their child support. It may be that the people here who have claimed that the CP gets to claim the kids as deductible are incorrect – I’m not sure, since I don’t have kids. I would love to see society restructured in such a way that raising children is not regarded as a “choice” which should logically carry penalties, but yeah, that will probably happen some time after they start offering skiing holidays in hell. And I would love to see the choice NOT to have children honored as well, but we as a society do seem to be taking a rather punitive approach there too. The current idea seems to be that you should be punished if you don’t want to have kids, and also punished if you do. Lovely society, huh?
I may have been insufficiently clear on the whole tax deductibles as an incentive thing. OBVIOUSLY people should just pay their child support because it’s the right thing to do, and should stop bitching about it. No incentive should be needed – you should do it because you love your kids, end of story. In fact, even if you DON’T love your kids (which seems to be the case with many of the FRAs here – not all, but many) you should still pay your child support because they’re your kids and they’re your responsibility. However, as the posts of many FRAs here have made clear, there are plenty of men who are not willing to do this just because it’s the right thing to do. A very large number of people fail to pay their court-ordered child support. My point was that maybe an incentive would prod a few more of them to do so (by no means all of them, of course), resulting in a few less destitute single mothers and a few kids being a bit better off. I agree that we shouldn’t have to bribe people to do the right thing but seriously, look at some of the posts from FRAs above – do you really think they can be relied upon to act in the best interests of their kids just because it’s the right thing to do?
Don’t mean to jump on you, just that I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Karl, love, please put down the crack pipe or whatever else you’ve been smoking and step away slowly before you hurt yourself. I mean really, I know the drugs induce paranoia and all, but this is just silly.
There is no vast anti-male feminist conspiracy. We’re not out to get you. We don’t despise stay at home Mums – I was raised by one and I worshipped the ground she walked on. In fact, seeing the lack of respect she got was a big part of what got me into feminism in the first place. We’re certainly not out to get little boys – I can still remember being a little girl and if I remember corretly I was quite fond of little boys at the time. If you’d pay attention you’d realise that a lot of the women on this board have kids who they’re actually rather fond of.
The bit about all those jobs in the DV industry that we’re apparently trying to protect was particularly funny by the way. Every DV organization I’ve ever encountered has been pathetically underfunded and barely scraping by, and would collapse in an instant without the constant support of many unpaid volunteers.
I’m guessing from the fact that you were off studying for exams that you’re still in Uni. If so, you might want to go get a bit more life experience before you start making sweeping generalisations about a movement that you obviously don’t know very much about. Just a suggestion, eh?
Funny about how a thread about FRA and MRA somehow “mysteriously” drifts into “Feminsist’s are man-hating bitches” and anti-feminist movement. Odd.
Britgirl you’re wasting your time. Anybody who repeats the canard that feminists are anti-motherhood is just ig’nant. Life’s too short, you know?
On the other hand…You’re obviously a Brit. I’m still trying to help this one guy, and I can’t find one fucking MRG that will help the guy. You know of any at all that aren’t bullshit? He’s disabled, and in Yorkshire.
Ginmar
I wish I could help, but I’ve been in the States for 8 years and am not at all up to date about what organizations/resources are avaliable back home. I’m guessing that you’ve already tried contacting the various MRA groups operating in the UK to see if any are willing to help, right?
About Karl – I have no illusions that I or anyone else is going to change his mind. It’s just that his tone annoyed me so I felt like mocking him a bit. I grew up with blokes like him. Can’t say I miss them.
Keep in mind that a major reason for non-payment of CS is poverty. The people who owe but don’t pay child support (female or male) are much, much more likely to be poor than people who do pay child support. Presumably, anything we do that makes poor NCPs a bit less poor will increase the odds of them paying CS, at least on the margin.
Fair enough Jake Squid.
It started out serious but this blog quickly became about pushing everybody’s button. As an example let’s look at ginmars recent outburst:
“This is bullshit. I’m sorry, but this is bullshit”
“Uh, yeah. Where do you get this shit? Your ass?”
“Oh, give me a fucking break.”
You can probably formulate opinions of people in this button-pushing exercise but you won’t find anything in my comments belittling the legitimate and just principles of the women’s movement. Social justice is social justice for men or women, fathers or mothers. I have my cause and I believe in it and you have yours. It would be wrong to judge my cause by the fact that I figured out how to push your buttons on this forum just as it would be wrong for me to judge your cause by ginmars agitated outburst. But since you say you have made up your mind there seems to be little sense in starting a serious debate. I did try and follow what rules were explained (stopped calling you Squid when directed) but clearly this is a place to verbally joust over ingrained attitudes that are not likely to change.
It’s much to late for me – frankly, I don’t give a crap if you right off the whole Fathers movement off as wife-beating psychos (which a few of you already have, apparently) – but it’s the world I want for my children. I think it will be a better world you think it will be worse. I think your a George Wallace. You think I’m an ass.
David wrote:
Okay, let’s take it back a few steps – you have to explain things to me carefully.
I’m faced with solid data that doesn’t really tell me, one way or the other, which sex (if any) has the advantage in contested custody cases.
There are also a lot of anecdotes from FRAs about how unfair and biased against fathers courts are.
There are also a lot of anecdotes from mothers about how unfair and biased against mothers courts are.
So what’s really happening? As Aegis points out, correctly, it is logically possible for all the anecdotes to be true; that is, it’s possible that some judges are biased against mothers, and others are biased against fathers.
It’s also possible that the FRAs are generally correct are painting an accurate picture of the overall situation, and that fathers are far more discriminated against in family courts than mothers.
It’s also possible that the reverse is true.
How can I logically choose which one of these three possibilities is correct? I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say, which is why I say that I don’t know.
In response, you write:
First of all, there are many anecdotes on both sides with similarities. So that doesn’t solve anything – I’m still left with two contrary (or not?) groups of anecdotes, and each side seems as credible as the other (at least, it does if I put my own ideology, which tells me that the mothers are more trustworthy than FRAs, to one side).
Second of all, the main purveyor of anecdotes about bias against fathers in courts are Father’s Rights groups. That means that the anecdotes are not actually unrelated; there’s an obvious selection bias in which anecdotes FR groups find worth retelling and reprinting, and which they don’t. (You could, of course, say the exact same thing about anecdotes about anti-mom bias in courtrooms.)
Nor are the fathers telling these stories, if they’re involved with FR groups, unaware of the fact that other fathers are telling similar stories, which means they’re not really independent. Yes, I realize that many fathers joined FR groups after their divorce had started; but they often don’t tell their stories until after involvement with FR groups.
Finally, what objective standards determine which sources are “credible” and which are not?
* * *
Rosa Parks’ famous bus ride isn’t an anecdote at all; it was widely reported on at the time, and dozens of witnesses verify that her ride did indeed happen. She was arrested for refusing to ride the back of the bus, and we have her arrest records, and photographs, to prove it. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the event did not take place.
An anecdote, by definition, lacks such strong supporting evidence.
In short, the “Ross Parks” counter-example you bring up isn’t an anecdote at all, and so is irrelevant to what we’re discussing.
I think it would be a better debate forum if people wrote a lot less about each other’s intelligence or characters, and more about arguments. But that’s just me.
Who gives a damn if Jake is George Wallace? Or if you’re an ass? Your arguments are good; or they’re not. The rest is irrelevant.
(Sorry, I’m in a grumpy mood tonight.)
We’ve got a five bedroom, two-story house with a full basement and yard for $36,000 and a big field next door we picked up for $1,500.
Ahem, I hope you won’t hate me for this digression, but holy cow! that’s 19,000 pounds! You can barely get a garden conservatory for that price in the UK. A 5 bedroom house would be at least twenty if not thirty times that figure. *sobs*
Are you sure you didn’t live out a zero in there? Please tell me it was a typo, and you meant 360,000. It’d still be cheap but at least my mind could process it. :)
erm, speaking of typos, it was “leave out”, not “live out”… sorry…
Sorry for the off topic, too. Just couldn’t resist asking when I saw that figure!
Amp,
You make this much more difficult than it really needs to be. Let me simplify this whole thing for you. You don’t believe anybody. Not me, not the other men, not the women, not the children, not the authors, not the scholars. not the intellectuals, not the government. Why worry about credibility? Why worry what “objective standards” to use? Why worry about whether an anecdote is an anecdote or when it’s relevant? Why worry about the logical possibilites of being correct? Why complicate your life with worrying whether there is or is not bias against fathers in family court at all? Were your children literally ripped from your arms by order of the state? Did you spend weeks trying to locate them? Was your accesss to them severely limited by a court because of false allegations? Did you instantly become homeless and have nowhere to go? Did you spend six months in the bowels of family court PROVING those allegations false at great emotional and financial expense? Did you wonder how this was possible in America? Did you long to see your children everyday yet were told you had no legal right to do so? Were you told that, as a man, any protest you made of this treatment would be construed as creating “conflict” and increase the chance of being barred from any meaningful contact with your children? Were you then subject to the worst kind of character assasination by the best sleazy lawyer money could buy? Did you then spend another 6 months in the bowels of the family court system and your entire life savings again clearing your good name? During that time were you subjected to invasive psychological tests prying into your most personal, personal thoughts? Did, after these psychological tests again vindicated you were you told that you could no longer be considered the primary parent since you had not been allowed access to your children? Did you have to depose witnesses to directly rebut and PROVE FALSE the testimony of the children’s own state appointed guardian who was later found to have family ties to my ex? Were you betrayed that the court never prosecuted her on ethics violations or my ex for perjury? Were you threatened and battered by a female inlaw yet terrified to report it because you knew that those allegations would be turned around and nobody would believe a battered man? Did you look to ‘the system’ for help only to be told those services were available only to women? Were you? Did you keep meticulous records of the entire proceeds, including 3rd party eye-witness testimony, just in case someone ever doubted that it happened? After all that were you then granted brief periods with your children. Were you? If so then you need nothing from me. If not, it’s likely that you’re never going to find what you claim to be looking for (althought the faux sincerity is a bit transparent).
Here’s what you say: “I don’t doubt that institutionalized discrimination often exists, as a matter of abstract theory.”?
and then mysteriously you claim:
“Rosa Parks’ famous bus ride isn’t an anecdote at all; it was widely reported on at the time, and dozens of witnesses verify that her ride did indeed happen. She was arrested for refusing to ride the back of the bus, and we have her arrest records, and photographs, to prove it. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the event did not take place.”
Please……. This is funny. You ought to charge admission.
“On the other hand…You’re obviously a Brit. I’m still trying to help this one guy, and I can’t find one fucking MRG that will help the guy. You know of any at all that aren’t bullshit? He’s disabled, and in Yorkshire. ”
Ginmar – the only legitmate group specifically for male victims of domestic violence in the UK is MALE 0845 064 6800. There are other services (non-gendered) that could help as well depending on what he needs – if you want to post here or email me I’d be happy to help.
Email = spicyheart27@hotmail.com
“The system is set up to treat them this way, by pitting females against males and the most damaging and hurtful tactic is to use false allegations. As much as they want to disown this, the feminists in positions of power support this behaviour.”
Err… no we don’t. I’m a ‘feminist in power ‘ and speak out loudly about how despicable false allegations are – not least because they make my work assisting domestic violence victims FAR harder.
However, false allegations by women is one of the biggest myths going – false allegations by men are actually more common. For example:
Are Allegations of Sexual Abuse That Arise During Child Custody
Disputes More Likely to Be False?
An Annotated Review of the Research
Bala, N. & Schuman, J. (2000). Allegations of sexual abuse when
parents have separated. Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17, 191-241.
Excerpt:
Canadian Family Law Judgments: Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two
Queen’s University law professors, reviewed judges’ written decisions
in 196 cases between 1990 and 1998 where allegations of either
physical or sexual abuse were raised in the context of parental
separation. Only family law cases were considered; child protection
and criminal decisions were excluded.
The study showed that the judges felt that only a third of unproven
cases of child abuse stemming from custody battles involve someone
deliberately lying in court. In these cases, the judges found that
fathers were more likely to fabricate the accusations than mothers.
Of female-initiated allegations, just 1.3% were deemed intentionally
false by civil courts, compared with 21% when the man in the failed
relationship brought similar allegations.
The cases involved 262 alleged child victims (74% of them alleged
sexual abuse). Thirty-two percent of these children were under 5
years of age, 46% were 5 to 9 years of age, 13% were 10 or older; for
9% the age was not specified. About 71% of the allegations were made
by mothers (64% custodial and 6% non-custodial), 17% were by fathers
(6% custodial and 11% non-custodial), 2% were from grandparents or
foster parents. In about 9% of the cases the child was the prime
instigator of the allegations. This study found that fathers were
most likely to be accused of abuse (74%), followed by mothers (13%),
mother’s boyfriend or stepfather (7%), grandparent (3%) and other
relatives, including siblings (3%).
See here for more: http://members.aol.com/asherah/falsealleg.html
Call me skeptical, but when a man does not argue with sexist statements and finds the response to them more abhorrant than the sexism—-gee, I can’t imagine why he can’t get people to agree with him. Also, good job on the selective quoting. Nothing else says trustworthy than someone trying to give an incorrect impression.
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums and this has suited governments right down to the ground. Well done girls.
This is the comment to which I was responding and curiously enough, you left it out. Let’s examine this comment, shall we? First, it’s a lie. Most feminists are wives and mothers. Then it’s patronizing—referring to women as girls. Gee, I’m sure you just forgot that. Or that’s all you can see—a woman who reacts angrily to sexism must be wrong, because there’s no such thing as sexism unless it affects some poor guy like….Oh, like you.
The sisterhood lives. Just seems to me (dare I say it) that it has been the patriarchs the feminists have been in bed with all the time, despite demanding thier supporters not to sleep with the enemy.
Sarcastic use of sisterhood, plus accusations of hypocrisy based on what evidence? Oh, someone’s opinion of women. That someone happens to be a guy who’s made sexist statements about women, but obviously we should give him the benefit of the doubt till the cows come home, the fat lady sings and the sun rises in the West.
There are many, perhaps even a majority of women from the vast anti-male feminist cohort (yes I know feminists have done a lot of good. Opening the debate on family violence was one such thing) who are very smug about the harm they have done to men and boys.
There’s so much crap in this comment here that it’s really like trying to comb out somebody’s hair after they’ve been in a windtunnel. Vast=Uh, yeah, they’re taking over! Anti-male—Yep, man-haters, that’s us. Smug. Yeah, right. Harm to men and boys. Yup, guys, we’re out for your dicks.
Go talk to Nicole Simpson, David, if you want to talk harm.
Thank you, Spicy.
YOu know, what I find most damning about the FRAs is this—-after their tortured appeals, after their recitations of woe, after their wails of discrimination—they are determined not to make sure that no one else ever gets likewise victimized—they are in fact absolutely set upon getting revenge and forcing their experience on women.
I’ve talked to lots of women who were raped. Not a one of them wanted to do the same thing to the man who raped them. Not a single one. I’ve talked to victims of domestic violence. Same reaction—they wanted him locked up, because of course it was always a guy. But they did not want to give him a taste of his own medicine, not in any way that would effect legislation.
I’ve talked to male victims of DV; same thing. It’s funny, I’ve never seen a male victim of male rape pop up and try and take the floor like male victims of female rape. M/M rape victims seem so different; f/m victims seem almost…affronted, somehow. For starters, it’s rare to have them actually show up; it’s always a friend of theirs who talks about the guy won’t talk about it. There, the desire is for something complicated: they want feminists to make it all better. I’ve never seeen a one of them express an interest in other victims, though, and their attitude to female victims of rape is almost resentful at the attention they get. The most common excuse for their behavior is that it’s worse for men. They and their supporters do nothing for other victims, but they certainly take a great deal of pleasure in being the exception to the rule. They do not as far as I know use their experience against other men—only women.
But that’s kind of what you see in FRAs. They’ve suffered, by God, and they’re the most important victim of all. You have to wonder if it’s the first time they’ve ever faced some of the same discrimination that women are so familiar with. A woman could tell her story, and these guys couldn’t care less. They want to make sure that no man wants to go through what they did. They want to punish women for it. Not the courts, not the law—these are all the fault of that secret feminist conspiracy. They seethe with rage at what was done to them, and yet they’re incapable of empathy toward anybody who doesn’t have a dick. They reveal themselves with their resentment against feminists, against women who fight back, against women who just won’t tolerate being dismissed and reviled. The little insults keep coming out because they just can’t be contained. “girls.” “sisterhood” and so on.
But that lack of sympathy gives them away every time. That, and that scary feeling of entitlement they seem to draw from their rage. They never worry what effect their actions have on t heir kids. They talk only about injustices to them. It’s only about them. And you have to wonder if that belief that they were the only one that mattered is not only what ended the marriage in the first place, but is even a good thing to reveal around a child.
something else I forgot: it’s a well known fact that sons of abusers often become abusers themselves, which seems counter-intuitive, but in view of the FRAs’ lack of sympathy takes on some significance. I’ve had a few women comment on my blog that they were abused by their fathers but their brothers absolutely would not blame the fathers. At least one of them wrote that her brother tried to form a relationship with his batterer dad and had contempt for their mother.
What the FRAs express is complete and utter contempt and rage for women. They don’t recognize it for what it is, because for them it’s simple reality—these are appaling harpies, they think, that has every one else fooled. Somehow they manage to get married a second time and convince the second wife that he’s a victim. That raises red flags for me. What about the way abusers never appear abusive at first? That sure explain it.