"Deadbeat Dads" Who Are Actually Moms
How about we forego the nifty alliteration, as Instapundit suggests, and call people who don't pay for the kids they've brought into the world what they are: "deadbeat parents." Oh yeah, or rather, "parents."
And sure, there are those who have suddenly been stricken ill with some grave disease and cannot work, but there are lots and lots and lots of those who either leave it to the other parent or to the rest of us to pick up their kids' tab. But, these parents aren't just dads. In fact, there are loads of deadbeat moms out there.
Here's a story on this by Liza Porteus on Fox about how the percentage of women who are deadbeat parents is actually much higher than the percentage of men who are:
Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.
Men who are due child support are also getting tired of deadbeat moms' excuse that they can't pony up the money, and some courts have responded.
California lawyer Eudene Eunique in February was denied a passport because she was $30,000 behind in child-support. Instead of spending money on visiting her family in Mexico and on business contracts, the appeals court ruled Eunique's money should go to her kids.
Meanwhile, warrant officers in southwest Florida earlier this summer dubbed an effort to list the area's top deadbeat moms who owed up to $19,000 in support as "Operation Father's Day." Included on the list were Trudi Dana, 43, who owes $19,001 and 29-year-old Mary Mahadie Friar, who owes $16,493.
Of course, the problem of deadbeat dads remains a serious one. Many more men than women have to pay child support, making the overall number of deadbeat dads much greater.
The statistics show 4.3 million moms out of 6.3 million who are supposed to receive child support actually get it. That leaves the alarming figure of about 2 million deadbeat dads, putting them more in the media spotlight than deadbeat moms.
But men also still pay much more in child support. The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that. Moms also get about 60 percent of what they are owed, whereas dads only get 48 percent.
Not only are the dads paying up more when they don't have custody, but when the court does hand the kids over to dads, they work more than moms who have custody.
I'm tired of all the demonization of men. It's not only unfair to men, it poisons relations between men and women, and allows women who behave badly to get a pass. Come on, when you hear "deadbeat" in relation to parenting, what's the next word that comes to mind?
How about we change that? Demonize deadbeat parents, and let's not get all specific about what's behind their zippers when it's what's in their bank account and who it is or isn't getting sent to that's the essential issue.
"Come on, when you hear "deadbeat" in relation to parenting, what's the next word that comes to mind?" Sink hole for my tax money! Someones free ride.
But yeah I see your point, since women are usually awarded custody men usually get hit with support payments.
"The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997." Every time I see this figure my first response is: Don't you mean 3,000 per month? What the hell is 250 per month going to do with regards to child care? That will barely even cover food for the kid. I though guy's really got hosed on child support but that figure irks me. If that's all the custodial parent is getting them I'm (we are) still paying for the kid.
vlad at April 25, 2008 7:19 AM
Vlad whines - "What the hell is 250 per month going to do with regards to child care? That will barely even cover food for the kid."
Well, Vlad, the non-custodial (child support paying) parent is only responsible for half of the costs of child rearing.
Now, $250/mo may be insufficient to cover 1/2 the costs, but, (and, you probably missed this) that data was from 1997 (why the hell is the Census Bureau releasing data that's a decade out of date?).
And, if you don't mind my asking, why do you beleive that $36,000/year would be a reasonable amount to expaect the average non-custodial parent to pay? Did you think that out at all?
use-your-head at April 25, 2008 7:33 AM
Whenever I hear about deadbeat dads/moms, it gives me reason to say more nice things about my wife, and other women who are truly independent.
She didn't want a dime from Crystal's father, but still allowed him to see Crystal regularly and be a father to her (it never went to court, they decided it amongst themselves like rational adults). She worked hard and took care of her kid without taking any "freebies" from the government.
To me, that's what a "feminist" should be like. Someone who doesn't demonize men and scream "victim" every time there's someone scantily clad in a commercial, but is independent and is able to show she's doing quite well enough on her own thank-you-very-much.
Jamie at April 25, 2008 7:40 AM
Heh. Try making do with $69/weekly that I get for my 2 kids! Ex is more than happy to let someone else pay for his kids; heaven forbid he should have to make an effort! Still, I'm glad I'm the one who actually has a job and not getting hand-outs from my parents - wait until I hit Ex up for all the health insurance he's supposed to have been paying for. His mommy and daddy won't be happy to have to pay it. It still won't be enough to pay for even one semester of college, but it just might get the point across to him that I'm seriously pissed off at him for abdicating his responsibilities to his daughters. He's the poster boy for Peter Pan Syndrome!
Flynne at April 25, 2008 7:42 AM
which is all goddamn hilarious when you consider the new Fox Reality(TM) Show coming soon to your living room!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352502,00.html
Brilliant, dont' you think?
/sarcasm and frustration
j.d. at April 25, 2008 7:55 AM
Swell. What a show. They should at the very least be targeting both dads and moms.
Flynne at April 25, 2008 8:01 AM
my SO has two boys from a previous marriage, and they live with us thurs-sun every week, plus they stay with us multiple weeks a year. not only do we furnish our house with clothes, toys and food for the boys when they're with us, he must pay her almost $600/mo plus 1/2 medical bills (and he still has to pay her when they stay the week with us!). the kicker is that she (and her fiance) make more than double what we do, and she laughs about how she doesn't need the CS. the boys come to us every week in old crappy ripped clothes. its so ridiculous! we hear about deadbeat dads all the time, what about the multitudes who get screwed over by the courts?
amber at April 25, 2008 8:02 AM
... the non-custodial (child support paying) parent is only responsible for half of the costs of child rearing.
Not necessarily true. I know that Ohio law* simply adds the income for both parents and requires support from the non-custodial parent equal to his (or her, but usually his) percentage of the combined income. If the non-custodial parent earns $67k and the custodial parent earns $33k, the former pays 67% of the child support based on estimated costs to raise the child.
I don't think that's fair because it's supposed to be a 50/50 division of responsibility. But the law is geared to focus solely on the child before any sort of equity comes into play. (Sorta like men who are not biologically the father being forced to pay after DNA tests reveal the truth.)
Nor does Ohio, at least, care about cost of living. If the non-custodial parent's $67k is earned in NYC and the custodial parent's $33k is earned in a small, rural town, too bad. The breakdown is still 67/33.
* Technically, this was the law several years ago when I tangentially encountered it. I assume it still is.
Tony at April 25, 2008 8:04 AM
Except for the 6 months where there were lawyers involved, I haven't taken a penny of child support. It simply wasn't worth it to have my son come home from his weekends with his dad saying they couldn't go to a movie because I took all his dad's money. I'd suggest that was a bitter exageration as he made $4,000/month and we'd privately set $250/month as the number, (which I just put into our son's own bank account) ignorning the ridiculous $800/month ordered by the court. (My salary was always the main, sometimes only, one.)
We can get by on our own and our failed marriage was a two way mistake. Getting vindictive about how he owes his son just seems a waste of my energy. I haven't mentioned $$ once in 7 years of divorce which makes it easier for the ex to quietly put away money on his own for our son, have a small wardrobe so our son doesn't have to carry overnight bags to and from school, get him his own set of toys, and even take him to movies and on vacation...all without having to ADMIT he really can afford it.
moreta at April 25, 2008 8:19 AM
Dang, moreta, at least your son's father does that much! My Ex has never even bought the girls so much as a pencil to go back to school with. They don't do overnights at his place, because it's a one-bedroom apartment that his parents bought for him, and DCF says the girls have to have their own bedroom. *sigh* He's content to live that way, because it absolves him of any real responsibility for them. Oh well. In the end, the girls will know who really provided for them.
Flynne at April 25, 2008 8:25 AM
Yeah, its nice he came around. But it wasn't something I was counting on or demanding (either from him or in my head). As long as our son is physically safe, I don't give a thought to what the ex is or isn't doing. It's not my business anymore.
Your situation sounds tough, Flynne. Your girls will figure things out for themselves when they are older and thank you. I just hope you're not hurting yourself by continuing to villanize your ex. You may be an oscar-winning actress in front of your girls, but if it comes through in your dealings with him (how you talk to him & his parents, having the DCF involved all the time), he has little choice but to take up the defensive position and keep behaving like an ass. He'll self-justify his position to the point where he can't make any concession because it equates to admitting you're right and he's wrong. It's not something most of us are good at, and as you describe him, recognizing he may not be perfect doesn't sound like one of his virtues! I can relate to some of what you've said: my ex was given money as a teen, dropped out of school and lived off the inheritance until it ran out, then lived off me until I finally found him a job...and then he actually started to progress in his career, but was quick to quit in anger. We smoked lots of pot and he was verbally and occassionally physically abusive. But who was the dumb ass who dated, stayed with, married and pro-created with him? Not exactly a great candidate for a "good" divorce, and he still came around on his own. I think partly because he never had to admit to me (or maybe even to himself) that he might have screwed up. He could just believe his situation changed so he could now behave differently. But you're there and I'm not...just a thought from way, way, way afar!
moreta at April 25, 2008 8:54 AM
I appreciate your comments, moreta, and I know I sound like a broken record when it comes to the Ex, but I'm afraid he'll never "come around" to the realization that he needs to step up. I try to be at least neutral in front of him, and I have never disparaged his parents within or without of earshot of the girls, but their enabling of him does nothing to instill any sense of responsibility in him. The only time DCF was involved was when the mother of his first child went to them for money, and that was when his parents stepped in and put everything in their name, so that she couldn't take it from him. She wanted to put him in jail! She gets $100/week from him for one kid, and I get less than that for 2. It's not fair, but she's a leech and I'm not, so at least I've got that going for me. And he isn't allowed to have any contact at all with the other child, which I don't think is fair to him, but I personally think they're both better off.
Flynne at April 25, 2008 9:13 AM
I've been on both sides. I was the custodial parent of my son for 11 years. During that time, the only child support I received was when the state garnished his dads tax refund. When he took over as the primary parent he was so far behind in support I didn't have to pay for almost 2 years. Now that I actually owe support, it is paid in full by the 1st of every month, without fail. It's the first thing I pay. I have absolutely no objection to paying it and frankly feel I'm getting off easy based on Oregon's calculations and have agreed to pay almost $100 a month MORE than the state says I should. While my son's dad makes more than double what I do in a month, he's the one paying the full time electric bills, buying the day to day necessities etc. I still buy things for him on top of the support and have never objected and never will, he's my son, I'm responsible for him. I've never taken a dime in welfare, even when I wasn't receiving child support!
Kimmers at April 25, 2008 9:21 AM
Kimmers, you are awesome, and that's so commendable for you to be doing all you do, but obviously you have the right attitude about your responsibilities.
While my son's dad makes more than double what I do in a month, he's the one paying the full time electric bills, buying the day to day necessities etc.
See, that's one of many things that I think just don't register with the ex. He just doesn't get it. Even when we were married, I was the one who paid all the bills, and earned more money. I'm really well rid of him, but I know the girls love him, so I can't justify severing their relationship just because he's a twit.
Flynne at April 25, 2008 9:29 AM
"But men also still pay much more in child support. The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that."
This is b/c it is based on what you earn.
In my case, my ex is self-employed. Hence he makes more than what shows up on paper. According to the state regulated calculations he would only have to pay me less than a quarter of the actual tangible costs (i.e. health insurance, child care, etc.)
Moreta - ignorning the ridiculous $800/month ordered by the court.
What part of the country do you live in (seriously) b/c that is less than what I pay in childcare for my infant in a month.
dena at April 25, 2008 11:21 AM
dena -- I'm in Calgary, Canada. That number was from 2001 when that was rent on a two bedroom apartment in this city. I was paying about $400/month in childcare at a downtown facility that provided lunch & snacks. My ex was making about $4000/month, but you need to take off about 40% of that in income tax/CPP/EI, etc.
I say it was ridiculous because we didn't need that money to maintain a decent standard of living and my ex giving it up would mean a definite decrease in his standard of living.
While it would be easier for me to just say my ex was an ass and he deserves whatever happens to him (and after him tossing me down the stairs and then trying to run me down in his truck after we'd seperated, I coulda raked him over the coals), it was me who chose and stuck with him. We were equally to blame for being in a failed marriage with a kid so we should both suffer the same financial (and otherwise) consequences of breaking up the marriage.
moreta at April 25, 2008 1:25 PM
Ex is more than happy to let someone else pay for his kids; heaven forbid he should have to make an effort!
What about all of the deadbeat mom's who decide to unilaterally abdicate their parental responsibilities via adoption or abandonment?
Where does everyone think that the stipend given to the adoptive parents by the government comes from? Money doesn't grow on trees people.
That's with out even taking into account all of the dead beat mothers what would rather murder their children via abortion [estimated to be roughly 35% of the population], then; be bothered to walk around pregnent for 9 months before dropping them off in front of a fire station.
"It still won't be enough to pay for even one semester of college, but it just might get the point across to him that I'm seriously pissed off at him for abdicating his responsibilities to his daughters"
You mean like the thousands of women who abdicate their responsibilities legally every year though abortion, adoption, or abandonment? Men shouldn't have to pay child support anyway. We don't have any reproductive rights so we shouldn't have any reproductive responsibilities.
The main problem with entitlement princesses is that they want to be able to demand guys 'man up' and 'take care of their responsibilities'. And then want to define exactly what their responsibilities are. Their responsibities usually includes sending the mother gobs of money, which they aren't accountable for, that get's spent on shoes and handbags.
The very fact that you admit that the amount of money you're harrassing your ex for is trivial shows that your whole goal isn't to better your childrens lives. But abusing the governments monopoly on just violence to beat up on your ex, both emotionally and financially.
Mike Hunter at April 25, 2008 1:35 PM
Okay, Mike, I must be half asleep (it IS a Friday afternoon) because you're not making any sense to me at all.
It seems like you believe the child-bearing responsibility all belongs in the hands of the female, to avoid entrapment (the "princess" reference you're making) or whatever. Okay, so, then, why are you apparently hyper critical of the choice of abortion? If a woman has an abortion, the guy has nothing to be worried about being pushed into.
"We don't have any reproductive rights so we shouldn't have any reproductive responsibilities." You're wrong about not having reproductive rights. There have been several cases in Texas, Houston, particularly, where I'm from, where teenage guys have successfully fought to keep their teenage girlfriends from having abortions - and they've won. In this case, I think the girl should be absolved from all responsibility, since she didn't want the child. In a reversed situation, yes, I believe the same is true for the father. And if you want citations of the cases, let me know, I will look them up.
But why the hell do you have to worry about any of this if you just put on a damned condom?
For the record - I only know her from her comments in this blog, but Flynne is pretty much the last person in the world you can possibly accuse of having some sort of princess or entitlement complex. She and her ex made the decision - they collectively PLANNED - to have children, and therefore it is a JOINT responsibility.
Seriously, am I missing some satire in your response? I am completely exhausted, it's been a very long week, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if my intuition is not up to par.
Jessica at April 25, 2008 2:02 PM
Mike...take it easy bud. You're not in feminazi country here so don't have to come in guns blazing. I believe men should have the option to opt out as soon as pregnancy occurs. If they are married and don't want kids, its divorce time. If they are single, they sign something saying, nope...don't want it, not paying and also hit the road. Then the momma gets to make the decision about where to go from there, knowing she doesn't have support (financial or otherwise -- no support=no playing daddy) from the dad or any of us. I know, I'm dreaming, but that's how I see a personal responsibility world working.
However, if the dad is part of the decision to have the kid, which is demonstrated by staying in the relationship when kids come around and acting as daddy, he should continue to be responsible for his share of support if the relationship breaks down. And I don't care who's "fault" it is. I think I've made clear that I believe it takes two to create and break a relationship.
moreta at April 25, 2008 2:03 PM
Amy! Shsssssh! This is SUPPOSED to be feminists' little secret! Yep, the worst "dead-beat dads" are moms -- and this has been true for a while. Why doesn't this get any MSM attention? Hmmmm.
BTW, studies show that the vast majority of those men who don't pay aren't "dead-beat." They're dead-broke. Often, they never had any chance to pay what was assessed due to that lovely concept of "imputed income" combined with retroactive orders and penalties and interest. How would you like to have to pay taxes on the basis of what someone at the IRS determines you COULD have made?
Anyway, good job in pointing out this double-standard.
Jay R at April 25, 2008 2:54 PM
yeah, Jay R. this is something to illuminate...
there is sometimes a whole lot of ground between what you can ACTUALLY pay, and what you have been ORDERED to pay. The rub, is that it is difficult to find out who is broke, and who is lying. From the standpoint of an ex, it's tough because that ex is no longer transparent. Also, it is a dmanable thing to always have to wonder: "OK, so ex just bought *fill in the blank* how can they afford that?" But it's also hard not to.
I usually enocourage my ex, to use a fweakin' calculator, because then she will know why I don't have $6K for #1son's braces. I don't live in a rundown 1960's apartment because I like the rats. I live there because I have been ordered to pay 58% of my takehome salary to her for alimony and child support. Which I will pay without fail so that I will always be able to look my kids in the eye.
For those who think that parents pay halfsies on the children, in most states it is based on percentages of salary, but the math varies state to state. The big however there, is that it is very difficult to force the custodial parent [the one the kids live with] to get a job IF they don't want to. It is also VERY difficult to get the court to make the other parent the custodian, if they DO have the ability to pay. You'd think that would make sense, right? Put the kids in the house of the parent that can pay for them? Allow the parent who needs to get on their feet the ability to do that, go to school and whatever, without having to worry about housing the kids? You'd be wrong about that. Unless you can prove the mother unfit, and sometimes even if you can, she will get the kids. My lawyer told me it wasn't worth fighting for, and I would lose, potentially damaging my kids in the court process.
Obviously we all know some people, and are people ourselves who do not game the system. We also may know people who do. IF you have an advanced engineering degree, why would you settle for a minimum wage job answering phones? People get away with that, ESPECIALLY if the other parent is too broke to take them to court and try and make them pay. However! Yeah? There are circumstaces and situations where you can't make more money than you are, and it doesn't really matter if some court thinks you can. From there it's pretty easy to become a deadbeat.
So there you have it. The laws and cultural notions primarilly affect the person who cares, the person who is conscentious, the person who tries. I have friends of both genders who have been forced to pay for their former spouses failure to step up and try, and for the abandoners, for the manipulators, and those who become deadweight to punish.
You wonder to yourself how they can look themselves in the eye, but that is QED. Because they DON'T care. Because they don't put their own children first. Because they feel so wronged they feel righteous in punishment.
feh, the whole thing is so jacked up, I just shrug in resignation. Eventually my kids will grow up, and then they will figure out who has been doing what, and why. I take a small amount of comfort that when the ex runs out of childsupoort when the youngest is 18?
She'll be 50 with no career behind her. I wonder who she will leach off then?
SwissArmyD at April 25, 2008 4:11 PM
When my ex had the kids, she was given everything we had, everything the kids had, allowed to take a vehicle leased in my name, and then took things that belonged to me that she wasn't supposed to take. It was minimized because "she has the kids".
With the exception of $2400 in utility debt that she ran up, I was stuck with 100% responsibility for in excess of $40,000 of debt (that she ran up). All of my savings, etc. was spent on the divorce. Awwww. Too bad.
She defaulted on, and wrecked the vehicle (with no insurance), which caused the leasing company to come after me for the whole cost of the vehicle. Defaulted on utility debt she was ordered to pay. No consequence.
During this time, I was ordered to pay $800 a month in support, 100% of their health insurance (no matter what it cost), and 50% of their medical bills. Dispite not working a job, she'd never go during the week, so there was always an after hours fee, and she'd never elect a generic. Frequent trips to the emergency room for things that should have gone to an after hours care, and since she never paid the provider, I'd catch hell for HER not paying HER half in court.
When I was awarded custody, she still didn't have a job, and was given a 'temporary' order of $140 a month. No obligation for insurance. While having an arrears for a year, she sued me again. A year later, still in court, and she's still never paid it. She's ordered to pay less than what someone earning minimum wage would pay, which would be about $250 a month. This state has a table based on the number of children, and maxes out at 6k a month.
My day care expense is nearly $1200 a month. There's no way to garnish her wages, since she doesn't work a 'real' job, she lives off of sugar daddy's and church groups.
The state AG's office is useless. The guy will beat his chest on tv about going after dead beat dad's, but when it comes to women, meh. They'll send her a stern letter.
We struggle, while she's doing pretty well. She still 'wonders' why I don't like her, and won't speak to her.
Offended_Dad at April 25, 2008 9:38 PM
Mike, just so you know, when the ex and I got divorced, we were both working, but I made more money than he did, which is why I was "awarded" only $69/weekly for 2 kids. It was also a part of the divorce agreement that he was to keep the girls on his medical insurance 100% of the time. Which he did not do. We've been divorced for 10 years now, and he STILL has not paid one dime more than $69/weekly. Never bought them ANYthing else, clothing, shoes, NOTHING, never took them on a vacation anywhere, and he does NOTHING to change that. He hasn't worked a steady job in almost 9 years; his parents bought him a car, and a condo, and give him an allowance, out of which he pays the child support. I on the other hand, have always worked, have always kept the girls insured and have always paid all of their expenses. Yeah, I'm quite the princess. Bite me, asshole.
Flynne at April 26, 2008 8:42 AM
Thanks for stepping up for me, Jessica, I appreciate that.
The very fact that you admit that the amount of money you're harrassing your ex for is trivial shows that your whole goal isn't to better your childrens lives. But abusing the governments monopoly on just violence to beat up on your ex, both emotionally and financially.
Mike you have got to be kidding me, $8+ thousand is a trivial amount?? Must be nice to have so much money that you can say that, but 8 grand to me is a least a start on their college fund. While my goal is to better my children's lives, it is my ex's goal to get away with paying the least amount of money he can to take care of them. But yet he expects to have all the perks, and takes all the credit for how well they are doing, without mentioning anything about who really does all the work to see it through. And who would that be? Oh yeah, me.
Flynne at April 26, 2008 8:56 AM
You know its conversations like this that make me wish I had taken a differnt path in life.
Joined the navy, the sub service, worked my way up to captin. Oh the problems I could have solved with access to my own nukes
(sigh) what might have been.
Oh well, with any luck we should have a major pandemic within a few years. Nothing like death on a massive scale to refocus everyone priorites
lujlp at April 26, 2008 11:04 AM
It just occured to me that most children probably didnt grow up with meglomaniacal dreams of global domination.
lujlp at April 26, 2008 11:35 AM
When my ex and I divorced, I told her she could have anything she wanted from our personal assets and furnishings, but I would bankrupt us both if she sued for full custody of our three children.
It was my only demand, and after we talked it over, she agreed to a no contest divorce that was handled not by lawyers, but by a counseling service who drew up an outline of our divorce decree and filed it in the courts.
My ex and I both have different strengths, which our children have come to recognize and lean on, but the most important thing to me is that they all realize that both parents want to be with them, and love them equally.
I'm finding that what I had assumed was becoming more and more commone (my ex's and my divorce) is actually not as common as I thought. Which is a pity.
kstills at April 26, 2008 11:59 AM
Wonder what the opposite of a deadbeat dad is?
First marriage ended in divorce. Made every child support payment on time until first son hit 18 (his mother died the week before, and left a large life insurance policy to him).
Remarried, wound up not only the sole support of our two kids, but the sole support of her two by her previous marriage. Father never paid a dime, and she refused to pester the poor fellow. She herself is an artist, i.e., generally unemployed. So I supported his kids for ... 14 years, and still contribute toward their tuition, etc..
Dave at April 26, 2008 12:07 PM
I'm a government lawyer working full time on child support enforcement issues and I'm up to my eyeballs in the problems discussed here. I'd like to make just one observation: there is a definite bias in favor of awarding custody to mothers. I'm not talking about a bias in the courts in contested custody hearings, which may or may not exist. I'm just saying that, for whatever reason, either by mutual agreement or default, custody normally goes to the mother. When fathers get custody it is often because something has gone horribly wrong in mom's life such that she has abandoned the children. A high percentage of support orders I see awarding support to custodial fathers are modifications of orders which originally granted custody to the mother who has later failed spectacularly to perform the parenting function. These are, indeed, some of the toughest collection problems and, if you think about it, it is hardly surprising that a mom who is so inadequate a parent as to lose custody of her children in this legal environment is also going to be financially irresponsible as well.
That Guy at April 26, 2008 12:16 PM
Every time I read comments like these, I am hard pressed to see any reason to get married. There are enormous financial risks in exchange for a few tax breaks and somewhat cheaper insurance. A lot like skydiving without a parachute - a short thrill with a nasty end.
mrquick at April 26, 2008 12:19 PM
There are many issues in divorce involving children, some unique to the situation, some common to all. The needs of the child are common, and at times those have special needs. Unique are the character issues, mental health, competencies, and earning capacities. In my divorce, I got the house, the children, and child support; she got the legal bills and the restraining order. She, of course, never paid a penny, burglarized the house repeatedly, and even dug plants out of the garden. A little crazy goes a long way. Still, she is my children's mother. I do not want to put a burden on them by punishing their mother with the law anymore than she has already caused herself to be punished. The children are grown now. We laugh about their mother's thefts and craziness to ease the pain of the violations. My children had to learn about relationship boundaries at an early age, and how to impose them, even on a parent. That has made it possible for them to maintain relations with their mother, though with difficulty and caution. Love is the easiest and the hardest thing to do in life; it is easily confused with other impulses and must be handled with care. America has lost many of the rituals and much of the culture that, in the past, made marriage more considered before entering and more reluctant before leaving. Still it happens, and all are punished.
twolaneflash at April 26, 2008 12:35 PM
The mom of my BF's kids is a total deadbeat loser. She is some woo-woo new age "therapist" with a handful of "clients." But she doesn't want a real job because she doesn't like "working for someone else." She can't make a living to support herself, let alone her kids. So she lives with her bf who subsidizes her "lifestyle." Child support? Hah! They "share" custody, which means the kids are with her three days during the week and he has them four days a week including each weekend. She seems uninterested in spending actual time with them (which is just fine with my bf who is an incredibly engaged and involved parent; and a decent, responsible, loving guy in every way) so it seems this arrangement is more suited to her claiming she doesn't need to pay child support than anything else. I don't know if that's her excuse for not ponying up any cash, I try not to ask about these things. However every time I find out something new about her (latest: she stayed home while they were married - and still insisted on hiring someone to clean the house) I am simply appalled at the overwhelming evidence of her lack of personal and parental responsibility.
RS at April 26, 2008 1:04 PM
I'm a child support collector for a western state, and have been for 16 years.
Amy, you are on the mark with this article. There are a significant minority of cases where women owe money to men. Their rates of payment are roughly equal to men, which means there are proportionatly as many "dead beat moms" as there are "dead beat dads." (a term I never use professionally; too emotionally loaded.)
Several comments to be made on several points raised here.
1. a sizeable portion of women are homemakers. How can anyone argue they have the earning potential of their working spouse? Yes, some have advanced degrees and some have proven history of earnings; I use that data when I have it. But the truth is that the c/s orders that moms pay is typically less, and for good reasons. I impute minimum wage to those moms and come up with a crappy order, but that's all I have to work with sometimes.
2. No one can fix the shattered lives of moms, dads, and children. CS is a bandaid. No agency can fix your marriage or your ex. After all, YOU couldn't accomplish that.
3. there are a hundred creative ways for people to avoid civil debts. Happens all the time. I've spent 16 years trying to pry money from people that owe it, and I fail to get ANY money on 35% of my cases in any given month. And believe me, 65% collection rate on current child support is pretty fine. take a look at Illinois or Arizona if you want to see some really frightening numbers.
4. I've seen all of the emotions expressed here every week for 16 years. I've heard it all, in a 1000 flavors. So, let me be clear. I'm not your counsellor. I'm not your friend. I don't know you. You may be the nicest person in the world, and your ex may be the devil incarnate, but I'm still going to handle your case the very same way. Personal stuff CANNOT have any place in my professional business; I have to leave work at work and go home to my own family. I do not have time to wallow in your pain. Call me when you are ready to do business and not before. BECAUSE. . .
5. I have 10 minutes a month to work on your case (presuming a 1000 case caseload). Let's call it 15 minutes with all of the multiple cases, interstate cases (that other states are working), and unworkable cases. (if your ex is in prison for 30 years for murder, your case is basically unworkable.) If you call and cry on my shoulder for just 5 minutes, you've burned 1/3 of the time alloted for your case. think about it. Call your friend and vent first, then call me.
csworker at April 26, 2008 1:59 PM
Let's consider this: two people get married, have children, stay married.
Foreign concept, I know. But why don't we as a society and nation urge the establishment of marriages built on love, trust and respect, that produce children into families that are built with one eye on the future and that emphasize two-parent child-rearing as the single most important task a husband and wife undertake?
Yeah, I know: crazy talk. Let's spend our time and energy on child support instead.
Denny, Alaska at April 26, 2008 2:25 PM
Jamie,
Most women who wear feminism on their sleeve really aren't. For fear of sounding ancient such women are golddiggers. They 'do it' for the money.
joh at April 26, 2008 2:33 PM
"Every time I read comments like these, I am hard pressed to see any reason to get married. "
You and me both. Although I must say, I'm far more concerned about the number of women who view divorce as some sort of "win the lottery button" if they get bored, angry, or frustrated. I've seen far too many friends get cleaned out by women who really did not contribute anything besides taking up space and money.
These days, marriage is a formalized way of saying "I trust you not to decide you'd be happier with none of me and half my money"
Tim at April 26, 2008 3:11 PM
"latest: she stayed home while they were married - and still insisted on hiring someone to clean the house"
My soon-to-be-ex wife stayed home to take care of our daughter for several years and during that time I took our daughter to daycare at least once a week and we had a maid come clean the house top to bottom once a month. She wasn't a stay at home because that's what she wanted to be, she just couldn't hold a job and enjoyed getting paid unemployment for doing nothing. She would go out with her friends at night and most of the day on weekends, leaving me to take care of our daughter. She played everquest or WoW all day at home while I worked 8-10 hours a day. She did essentially no housework. And I wasn't helping her out enough around the home...so she denied me sex and affection, nagged me constantly, put me down constantly in front of friends and family, and finally decided that I was "boring" so she would have an affair. I tried to just grin and bear it and put my nose to the grindstone to live up to my responsibilities.
The phrase "sense of entitlement" doesn't begin to describe it.
The only reason we had any money saved at all is because I had it put into savings (my 401k) before the check hit the bank account so she never had a chance to spend it. And now she wants half of my 401k, half of the equity in our house, and for me to pay the $9k in credit card bills that she ran up.
And she has boasted that she will get 17% of my income in child support tax free.
JustSomeDude at April 26, 2008 3:16 PM
It really is a testement to our innate good natures that there arent more people just getting shot for pulling crap like this
lujlp at April 26, 2008 4:22 PM
We need more women speaking up the way Amy Alkon, Helen Smith, and Racel Lucas are.
Men are partly to blame for getting taken advantage of like this, though. Much like white people have let black people get into a position where they get a pass on bad behavior. Thus, even Hispanics, who initially had no intention of race-baiting in order to get a free ride, are tempted when they see how easy/lucrative it is.
Reward bad behavior, you get more.
Women vote in greater numbers than men. Men's lack of organization has let this happen.
The one last point I want to bring up is a point that others don't see :
The existence of radical feminism in the West is a luxury we can afford simply because Islam has not yet made inroads into the West. As Islamic Law takes hold in some parts of the West, radical feminism will be the first thing to vanish, as these harpies beg the strong men of the police and military to defend them.
Thus, as long as radical feminism is still visible in the West, that means Islam is still not a potent force.
Tood at April 26, 2008 4:52 PM
"Every time I read comments like these, I am hard pressed to see any reason to get married. "
Get a pre-nup, and you should be fine. Even if you never need it, the psychological peace of mind is valuable, as is the lack of leverage she would otherwise have over you.
Tood at April 26, 2008 4:54 PM
The scourge of disparity in gender perspective and management by DSS and the family court system has long since been identified by observant people. The question stands however: what to do about it?
1) Make your voice known to your elected officials and representatives. Be polite, be concise but above all BE PERSISTENT. Educate yourself and be prepared to cite what you can cite: your personal experience, citeable resources (with reference to the source). Be cautious to never speak, write or post anything that cannot be sourced to your own personal experience, reliable data or authentic studies.
2) Make your voice known to your elected officials and representatives. Be polite, be concise but above all BE PERSISTENT. Insist they introduce legislation (and push for it passage) requiring equal access to tax payer funded intervention and assistance resources for all victims of Domestic Violence/Intimate Partner Violence (henceforth referred to as DV/IPV) regardless of victim/aggressor status or gender.
3) Make your voice known to your elected officials and representatives. Be polite, be concise but above all BE PERSISTENT. Insist they introduce legislation (and push for it passage) criminalizing False Allegations/Accusations of abuse/molestation/sexual assault/etc with mandatory and harsh sentencing guidelines; including tax payer funded programs providing full compensation for victims of False Allegations Accusations including mandatory restitution of loss suffered and costs incurred.
4) Make your voice known to your elected officials and representatives. Be polite, be concise but above all BE PERSISTENT. Insist they introduce legislation (and push for it passage) mandating public exoneration of wrongfully convicted and incarcerated innocent men and women, including tax payer funded programs providing full compensation for victims of False Allegations Accusations including mandatory restitution of loss suffered and costs incurred.
5) As you listen to your family, friends, coworkers, etc parrot the standard Misandrist rhetoric; intervene and speak what you know to be true, and again cite what you can cite. Be calm, be polite, don't back up and don't back down. If you can open one mind to the reality, that mind will in turn open a mind, who will open a mind, who will open a mind, etc.
If you wish citeable US CDC, US DoJ/BJS, US DoH&HS/AFC, etc and academic/scholastic studies (compiled, analyzed, peer reviewed and often published) please email this tag (delete the space) at yahpoopie email requesting the info.
Olde Pharte
Olde Pharte at April 26, 2008 5:09 PM
@That Guy:
Yes, that's how I became a custodial parent. I own a house, I was the only one working, had insurance, the other person was an alcoholic, among other things. My reward for being a responsible adult was to get handed the bill, and my violent and abusive ex was enabled to be a stay-at-home alcoholic. She threatened to (continue to) file false DV and child abuse claims.
Later, when I refused to accept a doubling of my support obligation, she sued me again. Played a child abuse card. I couldn't see my kids for almost 3 months. That case drug out for 18 months, and the guardian ad litem couldn't ignore her alcoholism any longer.
I propose that the system based on robbing the richer parent to subsidize the poor parent to be a single working or stay at home parent is pretty destructive.
First and formost, since we're spending BILLIONS of federal money on enforcing one small aspect of a divorce decree "In the name of the child" (Yeah, BULLSHIT), we should enforce with the same enthusiasm the visitation order and geographic restrictions.
Offended_Dad at April 26, 2008 6:00 PM
I think people should do a better job of getting married.
Crid at April 26, 2008 7:12 PM
Get a pre-nup, and you should be fine. Even if you never need it, the psychological peace of mind is valuable, as is the lack of leverage she would otherwise have over you.
A prenup isn't worth the paper it's printed on once there are children, because "the good of the child" trumps everything else. Since the mother almost always gets custody by default, that in essence means "the good of the mother".
I think people should do a better job of getting married.
That's like telling a woman whose husband beats that she should have chosen her mate more wisely. "Sucks to be you, but you shouldn't have married that troglodyte."
JustSomeDude at April 26, 2008 10:00 PM
Crid says:
"I think people should do a better job of getting married."
Amen.
But that's not the reality of many people. I can't go back and change my reality of being married at 19, getting pregnant the next month and having a child at 20.
So what's the answer to the problem?
In the real world, some women don't pay what they should.
In the real world, this is the reality:
http://www.slate.com/id/2189983/pagenum/2
In the real world, I left my ex, and (beyond all comprehension) left my children with him for a number of reasons which include that I did not understand the legal system. My fucked up ex raised my kids; which, to their credit, they have semi recovered and are turning out to be credits to humanity.
I'll have to go and investigate Amy's statistics which I'm just too tired to do tonite before I make a blatant judgement about it. But I well recall my own nightmare with this topic.
My ex lied about my earnings and I could not afford an attorney to fight it. It was a finacial, legal and emotional fiasco which I lost. Ultimately, I was one of these people that the article talks about - I was put up as a "deadbeat mom." Even though I DID pay child support.
I'll never forget that slander and how it effected, not only friendships and familial relationships, but - most importantly - my children's thoughts and suppositions about me. It hurt my children far more than it did me. And that, I will NEVER forgive him for.
Look - I'm all on the bandwagon for women to live up to their responsibilities as HUMAN BEINGS. My current husband has had horrible battles with his ex regarding alimony. That woman makes me sick.
But to bundle women up as taking advantage of men with regard to child support... I dunno. Amy may have crossed a line of reason with this arguement.
Inquiring at April 26, 2008 10:07 PM
Inquring, with all due respect you are an idiot. Where did Amy cross a line?
By commenting on governmnet data showing women fail to pay child support more often then men?
By saying that we need to stop demonising men simply for being men?
Or for saying we need to refer to deadbets as parents, not soley as men, and stop giving the women who do it excuses?
What was so damn horrible about those three statements?
lujlp at April 26, 2008 10:17 PM
I vote for referring to women who birth-but-not-raise children as Malingering Moms.
Most of the type that it's been my displeasure to know about aren't really actively evil, they just seem to be actively avoiding doing anything.
Also, I do know of a case where a lady sued her ex for support payments, and wound up with her paycheck garnished rather than the other way around. As for the guy above with the EverCrack addicted wife, I'd suggest he print out her chat logs, unemployment history, and childcare records. At least it will make a good case for a bit later down the road that she hasn't yet been the poster child for a doting, attentive mother.
Nony Mous at April 27, 2008 12:23 AM
> That's like telling a woman whose
> husband beats that she should have
> chosen her mate more wisely.
Excellent. You understood my meaning perfectly.
Generations of women have chosen these men as parents to their children, fucked the babies out of them, demanded consecration of the union (and financial investment in it) from the larger community... Only to squeal, some short time later, that "He's a nasty man! He lies and cheats!"
We in the larger society should stop pretending that it's our problem. If women knew these consequences were something they'd have to face on their own, their judgment would soon be much sharper, it would happen much less often, and we'd have about 90% fewer children of divorce running around with their basketcase attitudes.
Crid at April 27, 2008 10:09 AM
One of the big problems with CS is indicated by csworker, huge fucking case loads. There is time to make a quick, formulaic assessment and that's about it. This often ignores the reality of a given situation and puts parents in an untenable position. The way the laws are written just exacerbates the situation.
Vlad mentions early on, that $3,000 a month is a very reasonable amount to pay in child support. The problem with that being, few people can come close to covering that and have anything close to enough left to live on - if they even make that much. In a lot of situations, they just take a certain percentage of the non-custodial parent's income.
Michigan's standard is a third of the income - easy for people who make a decent income if they can change their lifestyle enough. But you take that percentage from someone who was making barely enough to support a family and it can put them out on the streets or into other living arrangements that are not appropriate for children.
Oregon is a lot better about making sure that both parents can deal with the CS arrangement, but even here there are problems. When my partner and I were separated, my son went on the Oregon Health Plan and momma got foodstamps for them. I covered most of her bills and rent, also giving her cash on occasion when she needed it for this or that, She worked as much as she could, but it didn't come close to meeting her needs.
I OTOH, was barely scraping by, trying to build a business out here and teaching older teens about various aspects of the building trades, in order to get a small grant to get licensed and make initial insurance payments. I also had my son about half the time, though on legal paperwork I had him 49% of the time.
So I was providing momma with around five to six hundred dollars a month. I had absolutely no room for error, regularly eating once a day if that much, so I could get by. Then the state of Oregon demanded CS. Not that much, just seventy five dollars a week. The problem was that it would be six weeks after I paid it, for momma to start getting checks from them. It was only due to loans from friends and family that we were able to make it through that lag period. Even with that, I nearly lost my home and went days at a time without eating.
Momma was even using some of her food stamp money to put food on my plate. Her case worker had me apply for emergency food stamps, which were approved around the time we finally were getting back on track. Because I had my son as much as I did, they were willing to give me $250 a month. Thankfully it came together and I was able to have them canceled. Ridiculously, I was also told to just use the first months payment, because once it was on my card they couldn't take it back.
DuWayne at April 27, 2008 12:46 PM
"Yeah, I know: crazy talk. Let's spend our time and energy on child support instead." Denny, Alaska
I think what you are seeing there is a self selection problem... I know that out happily married friends reading this empathise, but this isn't about them. By nature if you have been affected by this question directly, you've probably been cratered by divorce.
SwissArmyD at April 27, 2008 7:19 PM
Let's consider this: two people get married, have children, stay married.
Foreign concept, I know. But why don't we as a society and nation urge the establishment of marriages built on love, trust and respect, that produce children into families that are built with one eye on the future and that emphasize two-parent child-rearing as the single most important task a husband and wife undertake?
Yeah, I know: crazy talk. Let's spend our time and energy on child support instead.
This takes 2 people, not just one. I took my marriage vows very seriously; seriously enough that I will probably be celibate for the rest of my life and will never have a "family" again. And yet, there is nothing I can do to change anyone's behavior but my own, which is what I tried to do. There is no way I could have known that my wife would respond the way she did to becoming a mother, no way I could have known that although she said she wanted children, she didn't understand just how much responsiblity was involved and how much it would impact her freedom and as a result resent me for "getting her pregnant". All I could do was try to give more and more to her in hopes of making her happy, but in the end all that did was cause me to have even more resentment for her as the relationship was so overwhelmingly one sided. I was willing to continue in a completely one sided relationship in which I was utterly miserable because I thought it was my duty. I provided for her, and continued to treat her with respect. She initiated a divorce with me because I became "emotionally distant".
Imagine that.
JustSomeDude at April 28, 2008 10:34 AM
Thanks for another ,MUCH needed, article bolstering fact, and undermining fiction in the news and media. You make some very good points, I hope more people get a chance to read this!
justme at April 29, 2008 5:18 AM
What did these men do to justify the debtor's prisons, confiscation of property, money, future earnings, micro-managing where they work, for whom they work, how many jobs they work, etc.... if the divorce were "NO-FAULT"?
Child support should first be questioned as to lawfulness of taking children from an innocent parent and second as to who is the least stable parent ending a marriage for self-aggrandizment at the great cost to the children. Child poverty, abuse, sexual molestation, major psychological problems, teen pregnancy, promiscuity, drug addictions, perversions, etc. all skyrocket when the children are taken from the father. Even 'bad dads' raise better and healthier citizens than single mothers. So we pay women to destroy our children. That is really smart.
Every time some faithless and foolish mother files for 'no-fault' divorce expecting money, power, and control over her husband enforced at the point of a gun, we are all supposed to automatically assume that he must be at fault so he must pay. We do this even when the woman claims a "NO-FAULT" DIVORCE.
If, as a businessman, the law stated that anyone I contract with can bail at anytime with "no fault" on my behalf but can still receive all the benefits of the contract from me, this is fraud. If I were fully informed of that fact I would not do business. Would you? Or would you expect that criminal fraud to go to jail for committing her fraud. Why do we reward marital fraud.
The courts and legislators claim their draconion laws and enforcement is for "the best interest of the child". Yet women are the greatest abuses of children in our country, frequently not by mere 'margins' but by 'multipliers' when compared to biological fathers. Our courts and legislators remove protective and nurturing fathers and turn them into wallets much likes the Nazis turned Jews into lampshades.
No-Fault divorce should also mean no child-support and no child custody for the person filing this statement of intent to defraud. Why should we let our most unstable and fraudulent parents have the children and all the power to abuse that entails.
A Dad Forever, even when beat-dead.
Dad Forever at April 29, 2008 7:19 AM
Child poverty, abuse, sexual molestation, major psychological problems, teen pregnancy, promiscuity, drug addictions, perversions, etc. all skyrocket when the children are taken from the father.
????? Cite your proof, please.
Yet women are the greatest abuse(r)s of children in our country, frequently not by mere 'margins' but by 'multipliers' when compared to biological fathers.
???????? Again, cite your proof, please. I truly believe you are quite delusional.
Flynne at April 29, 2008 10:06 AM
Thank you for the 'delusional' statement, I wish I were then there would be a more clear explanation for what is happening in our country to children and parents.
However, should you want a central source of references that documents all and more of what I wrote, then get a copy of Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book "Taken Into Custody". He pulls together peer reviewed original material and material put out by State and Federal governments as well as many professional and peer reviewed studies by others. He is a professor of Political Science at Howard University.
If I give you the information you will menatlly discard it. If you research it you will own it yourself. If I am false in my presentation you will have so much information to allow you to puff yourself up a little more. If not then you will probably change the subject and attack someone else who does not quite pick up where you are coming from and why.
Other sites for the mentally challenged to use to begin to open their eyes (should they decide knowledge is better than laziness) could be the U.S. Dept of H&HS website with their stats put into overly simplistic charts and graphs. They now refuse to put out the raw data because their 'spin' on simplistic charts and graphs was being pointed out all too often where it was not supported by their own raw data. But if you do a little digging you to can find the raw data on-line. One example of oversimplification resulting in false presentation has been the inclusion of 'father figures' such as boyfriends and stepfathers in some of the abuse scenarios and labeling all as 'fathers".
It is on this H&HS web site that one of the 'multipliers' can be found in the murder of innocent children. Mothers kill almost three times as often and kill their male children at double the rate they kill their female children. But then you probably can not find the web site for one of the Feds largest agencies.
The other multipliers are:
A multiplier of 8 equates to 80% of rapists raised by single mothers.
A multiplier of 9.4 equates to 95% of prostitutes raised by single mothers.
Can you think of any other that was in my first contribution to this thread? Hello? Was anyone home?
To do some simpleton google searches you can use such word clouds as "incidence of single mothers raising prostitutes" or "% rapists raised by single mothers". It takes a little patience to wade through all the 'stuff' that pops up but look for government or .org websites first. If you do not know how to do that ask an elementary school student. They know this stuff by third grade.
If you are capable of using books, you may wish to read "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths", by Sanford L. Braver who utilizes over a thousand peer reviewed and government funded studies upon which he based his statements.
In 1995 I first uncovered stats from the Texas Prison system on the 95% rate for men raised by single mothers incarcerated in the State's prison system. Since then other states have contributed a consistently similar set of numbers. Maine was the first to note, online, the percent of sex offenders, by category, who were raised by single moms.
The child support enforcement people will gladly claim that single motherhood is the 'by far' greatest cause of childhood poverty.
Glenn Sacks has a great website with a lot of resources as does MensDailyNew.com. And then there is ifeminist.com and Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel and Cathy Young of the Washington Post who all write frequently documenting this very topic.
I could go on for hours. but I would bet solid money you will not read or look up a single item or resource mentioned. You will only snipe and resort to personal insult. Since that is what you understand, I threw in a few gratuitous ones to make you feel comfortable. I would much rather have a civil discussion and exchange of data with someone who actually researched before attempting a little self-aggrandizing puffery.
Best wishes and Thank You for the opportunity to present even more on this very under debated issue. I do hope that some of those who have contributed some very thought provoking ideas and views in this thread will continue their constructive discussions without being disrupted with silly insults. You may actually be intelligent and I think you are but your trashing efforts gave you away as intellectually lazy.
Again, you have done me a favor, thanks.
And if you had any curiosity you would have notice my email address is Romanji or Romanized Japanese for "clearly crazy". And you thought calling me delusional would be a barb at me. And thanks for correcting my overstrike on the r. I was in a hurry, but I have left a few errors in this missive for you to correct. Have fun. I know I just did.
Dad Forever
Dad Forever at April 29, 2008 6:19 PM
No, thank you. I would much rather have a discussion with someone who isn't seeking to demonize the entire female population based on unqualifying "multipliers" that do not reflect the majority of women in this society. If your claims are valid why didn't you just post the links to the sources, as Amy does? I'm terribly sorry that your circumstances have been so bad that you label yourself "Forever Dad even when beat-dead". Oh and just for your information, I can't look at your email address, because I am not the owner of this blog.
Flynne at April 30, 2008 11:52 AM
As I said, you would not take ownership and actually try to become informed. You didn't and proved me right on at least that one sadly minor point. Actually the 'multipliers' apply to divorced women (only a very small portion have valid "fault" based reasons) and a standard ploy of the most destructive of those destructive women usually degrade their former husbands. And frequently destroy their own children by degrading the absent (most often driven away) father
And, true violence only is present in a very small % of the households, but again, you can not find the U.S. Dept. of H&HS website so why bother. It is easier to sit back and snipe.
I read some of your previous posts and the most glaring issue was your personal attacks on your ex in a manner that would indicate the possibility of PAS. You really do need to start researching. You may then begin to be able to get a better grip on your own life.
As I stated in my previous post, you probably would not look up either books or websites. It was and is obvious you want to be spoon fed only what you want to hear.
Amy has very much taken ownership of her own knowledge base. The mere mention of a clue on how to find a new data source in an area of interest for her probably starts a search process that, for someone as 'un-lazy' as Amy, is like breathing or going out to get the paper. But you do not comprehend.
If you should ever decide to learn anything from anyone, you may wish to attempt to pick up on Amy's work ethic and intellectual honesty. Or, haven't you noticed no one hands her all her material. Nor, do they think for her.
Research and Think before you snipe. Maybe even check out one of the books I referenced at the library or at least read the review on Amazon.com. Oh, sorry, www.amazon.com and don't forget to hit the "Go" button. If you have the energy to make snide comments and shallow insults, you should have the energy to Google a few word clouds. And that is at www.google.com. Try the really complex key word could of "DIVORCE STATISTICS" or is that too confusing and complex? I do not know how to be of any more assistance. If you doubt what I state, the google the key words in my statements and see if there are sources that match and sources that don't match. You can find both on many. You can also learn how to see which figures are most likely to be valid. If you would do anything but snipe.
Here is one complete full, someone else did it for you, web address http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2001/0703.html
It is a web page from Wendy McElroy a former extreme feminist, journalist, video journalist, author, etc.... (She does her own research and thinking, too.) who will state and provide the reference for the data "The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3, 1996) from the Department of Health and Human Services reported that mothers perpetrate 78% of fatal child abuse." My statement of two thirds was from a different government study. I try to use the lower of a range to soften the harsh reality of what our society has allowed so many of our women to become, self-centered and without ethic or morality.
Then the government website stating women kill sons twice as often as daughters is http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/mf.txt
Do you still take pablum?
You really should treat others with more respect even if you do not respect yourself, it may actually improve how you see yourself and make the world less wearisome for the rest of us.
I just can't make anyone respect themself even if I wanted to control anyone else. That is your thing (meant to be ambiguous). You need to get a grip for the sake of your children.
The following is only a small list of what I have on hand and this post area my not have the capacity for all of it. The list provides source data origin. A guide to 'single parent' statements - it is a euphamism for single mother (women, the greatest child abusers are given custody in rates of 90% and up depending on jurisdictions).
Of course no is holding your hand so you will need to snipe some more because you are too lazy to check out if I made all this stuff up or not.
And my email name is baka.desho@____.com. You wont get the full address because I disdain cyber stalkers.
Effects of Fatherlessness (US Data)
1) BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS/ RUNAWAYS/ HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS/CHEMICAL ABUSERS/ SUICIDES
• 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children.)
• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
2) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ CRIME/ GANGS
• 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
• 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
• 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
• California has the nation's highest juvenile incarceration rate and the nation's highest juvenile unemployment rate. Vincent Schiraldi, Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, "What Hallinan's Victory Means," San Francisco Chronicle (12/28/95).
• Juveniles have become the driving force behind the nation's alarming increases in violent crime, with juvenile arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault growing sharply in the past decade as pistols and drugs became more available, and expected to continue at the same alarming rate during the next decade. "Justice Dept. Issues Scary Report on Juvenile Crime," San Francisco Chronicle (9/8/95). "Crime Wave Forecast With Teenager Boom," San Francisco Chronicle (2/15/95).
• Criminal behavior experts and social scientists are finding intriguing evidence that the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to the breakdown of the two-parent family. "New Evidence That Quayle Was Right: Young Offenders Tell What Went Wrong at Home," San Francisco Chronicle (12/9/94).
3) TEENAGE PREGNANCY
• "Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency." Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Atlantic Monthly (April 1993).
• Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families. The Good Family Man, David Blankenhorn.
• 71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
4) CHILD ABUSE
• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents' to monitor the children's health and welfare and to protect them.
5) POVERTY
• "The National Fatherhood Institute reports that 18 million children live in single-parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two-parent families will experience poverty." Melinda Sacks, "Fatherhood in the 90's: Kids of absent fathers more "at risk"," San Jose Mercury News (10/29/95).
• "The feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and jobs through shared parenting can help break the cycle." David Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993).
Dad Forever
Dad Forever at May 1, 2008 8:50 PM
Posted: Yet women are the greatest abuse(r)s of children in our country, frequently not by mere 'margins' but by 'multipliers' when compared to biological fathers.
And challenged: "???????? Again, cite your proof, please. I truly believe you are quite delusional."
May I direct your attention to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families which annually publishes a report titled 'Annual Child Maltreatment Report' wherein you will find the following (and note I even cited the tables where you will find this data ... vice uneducated opinions and uninformed rhetoric):
Per the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Child Maltreatment Perpetrators IAW Annual Child Maltreatment Report (not exactly supermarket tabloid journalism here, wouldn’t you say?):
1995- Table D-5 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 45,583
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 74,187 (over 50% more)
1996- Table 2-7 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 55,006
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 85,751 (over 50% more)
1997- Table 7-1 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 111,473
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 184,152 (over 50% more)
Table 7-3 (Fatalities)
*Male perpetrator 129
*Female perpetrator 218 (over 50% more)
1999- Table 6-3 (Maltreatment)
*Mother 44.7% (almost 300% more)
*Father 16.1%
Mother and Father 17.0%
*Mother and other 8.2% (over 700% more)
*Father and other 1.1%
Non-parental 10%
Other 3%
Table G7-2 (Fatalities)
*Male perpetrator 238
*Female Perpetrator 361 (over 50% more)
2002- Table 5-1 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 330,780
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 463,358 (almost 50% more)
Table 4-2 (Fatalities)
*Mother 32.6% (294) (almost twice as many)
*Father 16.6% (150)
*Mother and Father 19.2% (173)
*Mother and other 9.1% (82) (almost 600% more)
Father and other 1.4% (13)
Non-parental 15.9% (143)
Other 5.1% (46)
2003- Table 3-16 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 169,430
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 285,196 (over 50% more)
Table 3-5 (Fatalities)
*Mother 40.4% (over twice as many)
*Father 18.3%
Mother and Father 17.3%
*Mother and other 6.2% (almost 600% more)
*Father and other 1.1%
Non-parental 10.7%
Other 6.0%
2004- Table 5-1 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 303,604
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 415,344 (almost 50% more)
Table 4-2 (Fatalities)
*Mother 31.3% (307) (over 200% more)
*Father 14.4% (141)
Mother and Father 22.7% (223)
*Mother and other 9.3% (91) (almost 800% more)
*Father and other 1.2% (12)
Non-parental 10.7%
Other 10.4%
2005- Table 3-16 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 169,430
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 285,196 (over 50% more)
In virtually EVERY classification of maltreatment of children, the mother was far and away the > MOST LEAST
Any questions?
Gunner Retired
Gunner Retired at May 2, 2008 9:48 AM
I read some of your previous posts and the most glaring issue was your personal attacks on your ex in a manner that would indicate the possibility of PAS. You really do need to start researching. You may then begin to be able to get a better grip on your own life.
Do you still take pablum?
That was a very mature remark to make to someone who actually said they were truly sorry for your seemingly unfair circumstances.
You really should treat others with more respect even if you do not respect yourself, it may actually improve how you see yourself and make the world less wearisome for the rest of us.
Yes, and so your misperceptions of me allow you to do exactly what you accuse me of doing. Thanks, but I have a very healthy sense of self-respect. I consider myself to be a personal responsibilitarion. Just because you are not happy with your situation, that doesn't give you the right to cast aspersions on others.
I just can't make anyone respect themself even if I wanted to control anyone else. That is your thing (meant to be ambiguous). You need to get a grip for the sake of your children.
I'm not trying to control anyone either. I've got quite a grip on myself and my situation, thank you for your concern. Working full time while my daughters are in school and then coming home to them and helping them with homework, and making dinner, doing laundry and other household chores, as well as taking time out for movies and other fun activities certainly makes me seem unhinged in your eyes, I guess. At least I do things with them. When they are with their father, he sits at the computer and leaves them to their own devices, which usually means playing with legos and/or his cats. He really doesn't do much else in the way of parenting. This isn't "sniping", I'm just stating the facts.
And my email name is baka.desho@____.com. You wont get the full address because I disdain cyber stalkers.
You're assuming I'd be bothered with cyber stalking anyone! Sorry, not my style.
Of course no is holding your hand so you will need to snipe some more because you are too lazy to check out if I made all this stuff up or not.
I'm truly sorry that your circumstances have caused you to be so bitter to the point that you have to vilify all single mothers. Some of us are truly not that bad. Not that I can convince you, I'm sure, so I won't try. I hope things get better for you in the days and years ahead. I'll light a candle for you.
Flynne at May 2, 2008 9:49 AM
How very odd is that! Split the bottom of the post in twain!
Anyway, to correct such:
In virtually EVERY classification of maltreatment of children, the mother was far and away the > MOST LEAST
Any questions?
Gunner Retired
Gunner Retired at May 2, 2008 9:51 AM
It's the arrows themselves!!! *catching on here!
Let's try this again shall we?
In virtually EVERY classification of maltreatment of children, the mother was far and away the * MOST * likely perpetrator of maltreatment of children, with the father being the * LEAST * likely perpetrator of maltreatment of children.
Any questions?
Gunner Retired
Gunner retired at May 2, 2008 9:59 AM
Got it that time... hehehehehehehe.
GR
Gunner Retired at May 2, 2008 10:00 AM
In virtually EVERY classification of maltreatment of children, the mother was far and away the > MOST LEAST
Any questions?
Gunner Retired
?? Okay, I get the stats, and I'll admit that based on the figures, you're right, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to lump the RESPONSIBLE mothers (of which I am one) into the group of IRRESPONSIBLE and ABUSIVE mothers (which I am not). I wonder, do any of those statistics include information as to whether the mothers and children were ABANDONED by the children's FATHERS?? Or when/if the children were removed from those abusive mothers? Or take into consideration other extenuating circumstances? You know what, I'll bet not, because that information was conveniently not documented, was it? I know, I know, GO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. I'll get back to you on it, if there's anything available.
Flynne at May 2, 2008 10:03 AM
*slaps forehead*
Duh. I just realized that I don't have to justify or defend myself or anyone else to 2 bitter old men who are determined to disrespect every woman on the planet just because some of them are not up to their standards. My bad! o_O
Flynne at May 2, 2008 12:25 PM
And lest anyone mistake me, I am well aware of the fact that many many people of both sexes are not fit to be parents. I, however, am not one of them.
Flynne at May 2, 2008 12:37 PM
“but that still doesn't give anyone the right to lump the RESPONSIBLE mothers (of which I am one) into the group of IRRESPONSIBLE and ABUSIVE mothers (which I am not).”
Let’s get something perfectly crystal clear here: it’s no longer about ‘rights’. There are over three thousand four hundred counties, parishes and precincts in the 50 US States and 112 US Territories. In EACH and EVERY one you will find a federally mandated (per the VAWA/VAWA II) tax payer funded office, agency and/or entity offering federally mandated services to female victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence (henceforth referred to as DV/IPV) in the form of intervention, shelter, medical, financial, counseling and material assistance. Now work the math sparklette: that’s three thousand four hundred facilities staffed and funded by yours mine and ours tax dollars for women ‘escaping’ from DV/IPV.
I know of 9 such facilities in the country offering similar services to men escaping from DV/IPV (3 of which are privately funded). How’s your math (That’s a 377 to 1 disparity ie for every one shelter for men seeking escape from an abusive wife or girlfriend there are three hundred seventy seven shelters for women… and you’re whining about rights???)
You want to talk about ‘rights’? Talk to Gary Dotson, Bruce McLaughlin, Willie Williams, Dylan Davis, James Brumbaugh, Xavier Caro, Alvin McCuan, Scott Mckiffin, Harry Steward, Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty, Ted Johnson, and I can really really really sit here and names thousands (quite literally I assure you) of men whose ‘rights’ were stripped from them by mere ACCUSATION in family and criminal courts.
If the moderator here will oblige me for the moment, here's some good reading for anyone interested in how the Misandry evolved to the stage it has: http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol7no2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf
These also are a good read, better read in order to grasp the import of what's being communicated:
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=637737
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=637747
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=637741
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=637897
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=615687
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=563280
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=563224
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=570522
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=650284
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=593475
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=627343
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=635412
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=561994
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=507966
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=607937
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=563220
http://boards.msn.com/MensLifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=563216
Okay so it's a chunk of reading... but bear with it. Much will be clarified (as much by the content of the threads, as by the responses?) discussing the Misandrist Paradigm that has been allowed to fester in America until it reached the putrid stage that enables and empowers the wanton rejection of male victims of DV/IPV disallowing them even recognition as a legitmate victim of crime (domestic violence) much less access to tax payer funded resources and assistance so enthusiastically offered to female victims of DV/IPV provided of course they are willing to assign culpability for their state upon some man in their lives (even if they must fabricate allegations of sordid to fulfill this requirement).
Misandry is an evil despicable scourge that has infested every aspect of life in America for men, and some of us had quite frankly had our fill of it. From the lack of adequate shelters to turn to when our wives and girlfriends beat us to the US Congress spending BILLIONS of dollars on womens gender SEPCIFIC health care and a a fraction of that on mens health care (80 billion versus 500 million- a 160 – 1 disparity) and hundreds of aspects of life in between.
Here’s an opportunity to educate yourself (as an example): It has been propagated that “Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between ages 15 and 44 in the United States - more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined”
This is untrue, so untrue that to allege it is an outright lie. For example: the leading causes of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the United States in 1996 (not the 'high year' nor the 'low year', just the year I pulled the data on):
Event type / Number / Per Cent
Motor Vehicle Accidents / 1,504,119 / 21.2%
Accidental Falls / 1,243,538 / 17.5%
Other and unspecified environmental and accidental causes / 1,162,272 / 16.4%
Accidents caused by cutting and piercing instruments or objects / 515,986 / 7.3%
Sports injuries / 483,223 / 6.8%
Injuries purposefully inflicted by other than spouse or intimate / 399,240 / 5.6%
Overexertion and strenuous movements / 339,014 / 4.8%
Drugs, medicinal and biological substances, in therapeutic use / 166,687 / 2.3%
Injuries purposefully inflicted by spouse or other intimate / 153,555 / 2.2%
Injuries caused by animals / 137,639 / 1.9%
Accidental poisoning by drugs / 131,928 / 1.9%
Misadventures during surgical and medical care / 124,230 / 1.7%
Suicide and self-inflicted injuries / 102,392 / 1.4%
Struck accidentally by falling object / 87,485 / 1.2%
Caught accidentally in or between objects / 74,995 / 1.1%
Foreign body accidentally entering orifice other than eye / 69,590 / 1.0%
Accidental poisoning by other solid and liquid substances, gases, and vapors / 57,846 / 0.8%
Non-transport machinery accidents / 56,455 / 0.8%
Venomous animals and plants / 50,111 / 0.7%
Accident caused by hot substance or object / 49,766 / 0.7%
Foreign body accidentally entering eye and adnexa / 47,788 / 0.7%
Other / 147,889 / 2.0%
This data is taken from the 1996 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey Data File, which can be downloaded via ftp from the National Center for Health Statistics. Domestic violence, referred to in the table as "Injury purposefully inflicted by spouse or other intimate", accounts for 2.2% of injuries to women in this age group.
Rather than being a larger cause of injury than "car accidents and other things combined", domestic violence causes only one-tenth as many injuries as motor vehicle accidents alone (and 0.1% ahead of injuries by 'Non-Transport Machinery Accidents', 'Venomous Animals and Plants' and 'Accident Caused by Hot Substance or Object'... combined!!!).
And as any thoughtful person might expect, as a source of injuries domestic violence is well behind such everyday occurrences as accidental falls and cuts.
REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: November 2007
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 209 scholarly investigations: 161 empirical studies and 48 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 201,500.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2249008,00.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_13_102/ai_91752307
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2290835,00.html
http://www.ksat.com/news/15586264/detail.html
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=932dda19-d1a9-469a-8e4e-004ffbd9ff8b&k=
http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI34241/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=497565&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490
http://www.co.washington.mn.us/client_files/documents/att/Press_Release/ATT-PR04122007.pdf
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&94382article=61443&archive=true
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3558637.ece
http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.com/2007/10/oh-didn-you-know-john-your-son-died.html
http://www.4rkidssake.org/NC3678.htm
http://www.sheriff.org/about_bso/admin/media/newsdetails.cfm?pk=940&sType=M
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/weeping-mother-charged-with-murder-of-two-sons/2005/09/23/1126982231685.html
http://www.whiotv.com/news/10434655/detail.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-drown28feb28,0,2380142.story
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=68742
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9516/texas-mother-charged-with-murdering-her-infant-daughter
http://www.parentsbehavingbadly.com/2007/06/04/mother-charged-with-attempted-murder-and-first-degree-child-abuse-after-abandoning-baby-in-plastic-bag/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/05/11/ncot11.html
http://www.wusa9.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=61286
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mother-charged-with-sons-murder/2005/09/23/1126982222094.html
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/258994/17/
http://da.lacounty.gov/mr/archive/2005/010505a.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23831743/
http://www.wyff4.com/news/14515260/detail.html
http://www.examiner.com/a-1151327~Mother_charged_with_murder.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321988,00.html
http://news14.com/content/top_stories/588651/mother-charged-with-murder-of-infant/Default.aspx
http://da.lacounty.gov/mr/archive/2004/100604a.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/14/america/NA-GEN-US-Adoptive-Parents-Charged.php
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=276025
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/02/23/foster-mother.html
http://news14.com/content/headlines/588651/mother-charged-with-murder-of-infant/Default.aspx
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=12&aid=65742
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0108/486438_video.html?ref=newsstory
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=52101
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/21/2065181.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Mother-charged-with-murders-of-four-children/2005/02/24/1109180043512.html?from=moreStories
http://www.unchainyourdog.org/news/060119MotherCharged.htm
http://www.friendsofnarconon.org/drug_education/news/drugs_in_the_news/addicted_mother_charged_with_murder/
http://www.ndsn.org/sepoct97/breast.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0213/noorf.html?rss
http://www.waynecounty.com/prosecutor/docs/pressReleases/2006/2006-October2-CantonFosterMotherCharged.pdf
http://www.heraldextra.com/component/option,com_contentwire/task,view/id,27555/Itemid,53/
Sad, when you stop and think how society so enthusiastically assigns culpability for such heinousness upon men in general and fathers in particular... but let's continue with the expose' shall we?
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3428050&page=1
http://gothamist.com/2007/01/10/mother_charged.php
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1965230/
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_14332.aspx
http://www.todayslocalnews.com/?sect=tln&p=822
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/10/bodies.found/
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/020305/loc_20050203005.shtml
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2008/jan/04/documents-give-peek-into-case-of-mother-charged/
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18378240&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=619045&rfi=6
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/12/48hours/main271220.shtml
http://archive.seacoastonline.com/2004news/03182004/world/5901.htm
Whether it’s what you want to hear or not, there’s the data. Sadly... tragically... women can be and are every bit as violent as men (you just don't hear about it in the news is all, and of course the FemiPols don't want you to know about it either).
Questions?
Next time try educating yourself before you go running your mouth…. Because you may just find yourself running your mouth in front of someone who knows what they’re talking about.
Gunner Retired
Gunner Retired at May 2, 2008 8:33 PM
*post pending amys approval*
GR
Gunner Retired at May 2, 2008 8:38 PM
In the meantime, here's some 'lite' reading for you (discussing lumping all men, even the decent caring men, into one vile category) peruse: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/09/26/imbra-anatomy-of-a-feminist-hoax/
Gunner Retired
Gunner Retired at May 2, 2008 9:24 PM
Same topic, this time from Wendy (a woman): http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html
Be glad all we're doing is talking... not passing US Federal Laws based on gender biased misinformation, hype and rhetoric.
K?
Gunner Retired
Gunner Retired at May 2, 2008 9:26 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/25/deadbeat_dads_w.html#comment-1544039">comment from Gunner RetiredPost ONE link per comment. If you want to post 20 links, you need to get your own blog. This is a discussion forum, not a personal platform. Discussing stuff is great. Use your own words. Occasionally add a link for emphasis. Great. If your comment takes up more space than almost all of the text I've posted, consider whether it's polite to post so much text.
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2008 9:32 PM
Thanks amy... do you ever contribute to Glenn Sacks or Ned Holstein's sites?
GR
Gunner ARetired at May 2, 2008 9:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/25/deadbeat_dads_w.html#comment-1544041">comment from Gunner ARetiredI comment on Glenn's site. We're talking about guest-posting on each other's sites occasionally.
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2008 9:39 PM
Amy, I look forward to seeing your work on Glenn's site. I encouraged Glenn to focus on this topic range when his work first came to my awareness when he was a part time columnist with only a couple of Ca. newspapers.
When Kathleen Parker and Cathy Young first came to my awareness, much earlier than Glenn did, I wrote them, their papers' editors, and even to the newpapers who published those syndicated columns, encouraging all of them and praising the work of those three (Glenn included)very solid journalists.
Early in their careers, I told all three that their careers would skyrocket if they continued to write articles exposing the very serious abuses of men that were translating into the complete disruption of our society by enslaving one portion of our population while providing super rights and entitlements to another. All three have prospered greatly. Cathy Young has been asked to testify before Congress on these issues, if what I have received second hand is true. We could not have a better person in our corner.
Amy, I believe you can do the same. There is no need for hype, false data, or myth to promote a return to the concepts of 'equality under law', 'innocent until proven guilty', 'children need both parents' and other such inter-related issues that have arisen in this bizarre social experiment. One theory is that these forced social programs are to destroy the power of the family as it is juxtapositioned against the government as is presented by many conflict theorists. They base this on the use of welfare on Black families to break the strong family unit apart. In the 50' and 60's researchers almost unanimously agreed the demographic with the strongest family units were the Blacks. It was that strong family unit that opposed the official prejudice and discrimination by our government at that time. The Blacks successfully held together and challenged that authority successfully. Thus, female only welfare for Black women began to be promoted. It was a buyout of family structure. Now it has been made middle class by 'no fault' divorce and child support. This is an oversimplification but still rather accurate.
Another popular theory is that it is a typical totalitarian ploy to ridicule, radicalize, demonize, then criminalize an innocent target population to justify sweeping denials of individual rights.
Who knows the reasons, a grab of power away from all citizens. However, by addressing the methods of implementation (pc politicians and media propoganda) we can begin to return to sanity and rule of Constitution.
I believe that by writting as openly and honestly as you do in all your published work, not only will your career take off even more, but you will be doing one of the most important services to society and the true well being of children that few others are capable of doing.
Thank you for what you have already done by opening up your site to allow public discussion on the greatest civil rights abuses in our country since the genocide of the Native Americans. (Even greater than slavery in total numbers affected and total number of children removed from both parents). All is being done using false DV and child abuse statistics that our governments own research shows to be false.
And, yes, I too publish on these topics but under a different screen name. Not anywhere near as well read as you or the other authors I have mentioned in this and other posts on your site.
And to Gunney (Gunner Retired), Semper Fi, 1966 -1972, U.S.M.C.
Amy, my apologies for presenting too long of a list of references as well in earlier posts on this topic. I appreciate being allowed a guest presence on your site.
Thanks, again for what you do.
Gratefully,
Patriot Dad Forever
Dad Forever at May 3, 2008 4:39 AM
Dad Forever,
US Navy
0877/79, 0812, 9502 ... 1979 to 1999 ... GMG1(SW) Ret.
Bore Clear!!!
G_R
Gunner Retired at May 3, 2008 6:14 AM
Leave a comment