you DO know that a wife is a life partner not someone you order off the internet like DVDs thru Netflix? your hyperbole about the trauma of men paying child support is ludicrous, it simply does not happen, no one has their car towed, no one goes to jail for missing one or two payments... how do you expect to be taken seriously when you can't control the melodrama?
This statistics state that 84 % of single parents are mothers and only 16 % are fathers, so you are supporting my view that the courts are short-changing men by exploiting the sociatal norm. Well okay, still less painful than abortion or a child who works out that his/her father hates paying the child support. So I support this one.
Oh well, we have gambled our dicks out to the liberals inch-by-inch and now we have zero, but I have an idea almost as good. Women consider/use us as gigantic dildos temporarily until the Asians step up their production. Deal?
One of the reforms I proposed in one of my sposts here was to link child support to a % of the father's tax return. Since you go to jail for tax evasion, then you wouldn't need to summarily criminalize men for being men as a category. I saw this on TV but here are a few links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Marriage_Broker_Regulation_Act [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihW4P8Bcrxc"]US Law IMBRA Says Men Who Date Foreign Women Are Losers - YouTube[/ame] http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/IMBRA072106.pdf So if women (rightly) say that not all women are this-and-that then why do they write a LAW to criminalize ALL men summarily as a category? (But this is only an example of the true colors of feminist legislations.) Okay, so if you pick a girl, start it with this pickup line then: "let me show you my records that I am not a convicted sex offender and I am not late with my child support". A real heart warmer! Or let me tell my friend to introduce me to that really cool chick but first get her signature that she saw my police clearance. And, are women vulnarale parties because they are women? I think they would object to your sexist categorization.
I wish I had seen your post earlier. I have speculatd about this earlier here, and you are proving it. I think child supprt should be collected as a form of tax withholding, so that it scales with volatile fluctuating income levels, and hides well from the views of children. You are right, although the job market makes this impossible. Actually yes, people do suck, I guess this may be a consequence of personality, I can't imagine how love can turn into hate, however well published in arts.
Let me make sure that I understand this. Are you saying that if men spend extra money at legal cost, they are more likely to get the custody? I am not in such a situation but if I was a divorcig father, I would do everything to get custody of my children who I would naturally love. (Although it is quite unimaginable how you stop loving your wife in the first place after you had married her for loving her. Maybe you are forced into divorce because she decides to hate you.)
Absolutely, the one who has more money can keep bringing case after case, and can afford the best attorneys. People stop loving each other all the time for various reasons, sometimes they learn they were mistaken about the other person from the start. Sometimes love disappears with the stress of everyday living.
I agree, this is somewhat unortodox in western societies, but there is a wide statistics and TV programs about men in the US who "ordered" their wives from eastern countries over the internet. They generally report long lasting happiness with those wives. For example some states take away the man's drivers license. I saw a guy who was homeless because his social security was entirely diverted to overdue child support payments. I could continue. Just out of curiousity, do women think that a man who lost his job will have the extra money to travel back to his original divorce court to ask for a down adjustment of his child support obligations? Yeah, I can't really control much here because I myself am under the feminist mind control (like everyone else). But there must be a way to address men's situations and widely reported failures to meet the obligations of their divorce terms. I feel that it can't just be that "those men are this-and-that". The current feminist approach about this question, that is simply to criminalize men, is rather extortionist in its style/attitude and is designed not to solve the problem but to do something else.
So, are you prooving that after getting (routinely) ignored at divorce courts, men can buy some equal rights for money? If the stress of the volatile job market and/or an addiction to the hypes of falling in new love are that cause most of the divorce statistics, then may I propose that only making men pay for it will never help? Maybe it is in nobody's interest to reduce divorce statistics. But if we want to do something then we may have to look back to the times when there was a lot less divorce despite economic hardship, and those times were before feminsm started.
So you think that getting women barefoot, pregnant, and back in the kitchen will solve all the world's ills? Exactly when do you consider to be the time that feminism started? What are equal rights for men, getting exactly evenly split custody? Men don't actually want equal custody for the most part, most men don't even ask for it.
So you think that getting women barefoot, pregnant, and back in the kitchen will solve all the world's ills? Exactly when do you consider to be the time that feminism started? What are equal rights for men, getting exactly evenly split custody? Men don't actually want equal custody for the most part, most men don't even ask for it.
This is exactly why it is important to establish a relationship without sex and allow enough time to see an individual in many different situations. This allows one to reject inappropriate matches. Sex is emphasized in our society and children are taught how to have it 'safely.' This carries into adulthood and dilutes the accepted morals and values of a society that have traditionally not condoned before-marriage sex. All of this has the effect of folks substituting a loving, awe-filled respect for each other with sexual encounters. Since sex is the mechanism by which human males and females create offspring, children often result from sexual encounters where there is no loving, awe-filled commitment. Abortion does allow a woman to 'clean up' after an unfortunate sexual encounter but it also is an element of feminism which purports to 'free' women to have sex just like men do. All of this combines to greatly reduce the need of a husband & wife with children to seek strategies to honor their commitments. People don't suck.....It's the concept foisted upon US by the liberal-feminist-government-media-machine that sex is a meaningless fun activity that really sucks. It allows folks to blithely disregard their own children's basic need which is to have an intact family. The more we push abortion, no-fault divorce and teach the next generation how to have 'safe' non-committed sex, the more children will be raised in broken homes.
If she is pregnant, shouldn't she be preparing the home for a new life? Shouldn't she have already planned for this and have a devoted husband? How does she expect to raise a child if she is working? Daycare centers make a killing raising folks' children for them and our jails are full of fatherless men whose mothers never bothered to choose wisely in the first place. Sex and their 'right' to an abortion was more important.
Child support payments already take income (which isn't necessarily the same as taxable income) in to account but I see no justification for it to be a simplistic percentage of tax paid. The income of the custodial parent and the fundamental requirements of the child are relevant too. If anything, you'd see a lot of people paying much more than they currently do. None of this addresses the key problem, of people not paying and determining whether it is an real inability or unwillingness. OK, so there is a requirement for the orginisations who arrange the contact to carry out some basic checks on the people they're putting together. I see nothing about any requirement for the individuals to prove those checks had been carried out and nothing about any requirements on individuals who make the contact independently of any commercial organisation. It doesn't seem a flawless system and appears to be a political reaction to a couple of high profile crimes but I don't see a problem with the principal of these organisations having some responsibility regarding the nature of the people they're presenting to potentially vulnerable clients. One key point is that this law (like all others) is gender neutral. A woman engaging an orginisation like this would (by the law) have exactly the same checks carried out. A law or regulation to carry out a criminal records check isn't criminalising anyone. I had to have such a check for my current job (because I access personal data) and didn't feel criminalised at all. In those examples, there is a personal relationship between the person asking and "middle man". If a complete stranger came up to you and said he thought your sister was cute so could he have her phone number, I hope you'd think twice at least. You'd want to know a bit about this guy first. In that situation, it wouldn't need to be as formal as a criminal record check but you'd still do things to get an idea of his background and character. No. In this example, the suggestion is that "mail order brides" are specifically vulnerable but on the same basis, "mail order grooms" would be too. The vulnarability is the immigration aspect, not the gender. Child support is the same. It isn't about punishing men, it's about supporting children. The fact it's mostly (though not exculsively) men getting the orders isn't the intent of the system, it's just an inevetable consequence of human nature and social structure.
that is pretty much how it is done here in the majority of cases - but the payer still whines, and the payee often thinks they are disadvantaged. some men have been known to quit jobs and get "under the counter" income to reduce payments.
What do you mean, buying a bunch of baby stuff to "prepare the home"? No, babies don't really need all that stuff. If she's keeping the baby, she needs to prepare herself. Unfortunately, one cannot really plan for a devoted husband. They don't come with a birthmark on the forehead or any other reliable method of discerning "devoted" from nondevoted. When both parents work, both parents have to contribute to child care. It is better for the child to have an active father involved rather than being absent for work. There's nothing particularly new about fathers running out on their obligations. In the old days, before feminism, women had to stay married to those men, but that didn't make them a happy family. Now that women can get jobs that will support their children, they don't HAVE to stay with men that aren't worth it.
I am a guy myself but I can't imagine why those guys wouldn't want to spend time with their kids. You must be writing about an existing statistical fact, so it would be interesting to understand why. The woman = barefoot + pregnant + kitchen equation is no good for us guys either. Constructive propositions are however prevented because of the feminist mind control. Let me illustrate this. Before the success of feminism, money, paycheques, prices, and expectations were as per workman = family. Now after feminism, workman = workwoman = individual not family, and as a result every family MUST have both parents working to achieve the same basics as a single huband/father could before feminism. Feminism "constructively destroyed" all mindsets of alternative solutions. How many taboos would I break if I attack the idea of child welfare?
It works out very well for a lot of men to get their kids every other week-end. They can spend the week-end doing fun things with the kids and they avoid the daily grind of "do your homework" "hang up your coat" "brush your teeth" "clean your room", which makes Dad seem like a really fun guy and makes Mom seem like a grinch. That's true except that our expectations have changed as far as our standard of living. The good thing about having both spouses work is that one spouse can no longer control the other spouse with money. Money is power and now women have power too. Don't know, why don't you make your point and see.
Nobody is allowed to address it either. Only my thread alone is making an attempt. But it is the individual whos immigration petition/application gets denied. So reading between the lines, this IS against individuals. Or small crimes only but puffed up by feminist pressure groups. Every business trend has some % of criminal participants everywhere. The clients are only potentially vulnarable if you don't trust law enforcement against domestic crime and imigration fraud. Not gender neutral, the statistics of foreign grooms is a LOT less than foreign brides. So you had a reason for it (your job), but people's personal lives should NEVER be a reason for criminal pre-screening. If they commit a crime in their personal lives, let law enforcement deal with it. You violate the habeas corpus if you impose processes to pre-screen people in bad faith. This is a form of character deformation. But I wouldn't hold the overbearing power of the government over his head, because I am an individual, not a government/organization. This makes a lot of differene. If you hold a government post and use it in this situation, you get fired. Your wording is your own answer. The immigration aspect may be the weak point, but it is the gender that produces the difference. And the judges taking FULL advantage of it with a glee. (But I hear they are mostly women, so how would you even fairness, anyways?)
Unfortunately, in the US, it isn't. Maybe we could learn a few things from Australia. Shame on them. Jesus Christ Cass, then this world is creazy. May I propose a court order to place such under-the-counter switchers into special government run bisexual brothels until they work off the difference there?
You go tell a pregnant mother her child does not need 'baby stuff.' Who are YOU to tell anyone what they can buy for their child anyway? Even a bird knows how to make a nest to prepare for new life. Yes neither men or women come with a label that is why it is important for both men and women to withhold sexual intimacy so as to not inadvertently create a permanent connection where it is not viable. In our society, we do not have arranged marriages we depend on folks being able to get along and overcome their differences in order to create stable family platforms therefore, it is in the best interest of BOTH parties to test the resolve of their proposed life-partner BEFORE having sex. Infants need their mothers more than their fathers. Any woman who drops their infant off a day-care is showing callous disregard for their own child's welfare and any father that wants the mother of his child to abandon it to the arms of a daycare worker is not a father at all. I would agree that as a child develops, the father could be a substitute for a stay-at-home parent, that is up to the couple to decide. These issues can be discussed and worked out long before penis goes into vagina to at least come up with a viable strategy once the commitment is made. Yes and there is nothing particularly new about women spreading their legs for some guy because he is 'sexy' or 'dangerous'.....Unfortunately bad choices lead to bad outcomes and the child is the one who will carry the brunt of the fallout. A 'happy family' can only be had by 1) Making a good choice 2) Making plans mutually accepted by both parties 3) Making a commitment to each other which includes treating each other with dignity and respect. This doesn't mean one is going to be 'happy' all the time. Why would a woman choose a man who is 'not worth it' in the first place?
most of the "baby stuff" on the market is there to make a profit for the manufacturers and retailers. Baby's don't need much. What they need most is people who love them and will care for them properly. Being mentally and physically prepared, and aware of the changes that you will face when you become a mother, is the best way to make this happen. I don't disagree that it is best to get to know people before making a commitment (and to me - having sex is about commitment) but ultimately, it is up to the individual. I don't think this is true. in this day and age there are a whole range of possible arrangements - which can include quality long day care, both parents working part time, one party working part time and accessing extended famiy or other carers for periods when neither parent is available - and so on. theoretically ... in practice it isn't going to happen as much as you think even when there are planned pregnancies. in an ideal world, and its certainly the way I would choose - but unfortunately we all know of "good choices" that turn out to be "bad choices" when a situation changes. because "love" is not based on reason.
what about men? should they also choose wisely - or are women the only one with the moral obligation to make right choices?
If a male has sex with a female and fails to protect himself the best he can he is an idiot. A woman's choice to have an abortion may well be her idea of birth control. So a male that has a concern should ask her view on abortion. He has his opportunity.
