Where Are The Feminists?
If you're for fair treatment for all (and not special rights for some under the guise of equal rights), how can you not be vocally against all of this below? Phyllis Schlafly writes on WND:
Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?
Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?
"Never"? I'm not sure about never. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly, I've read on Glenn Sacks' site, I think, that a man should go to the judge right away if he loses his job in hopes of getting his child support reduced. And don't get me wrong, I'm for supporting the children you have, but if a child support order serves to make a man homeless and jobless, it's helping no one and hurting both the father and the child.
Schlafly continues:
Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?
These are among the injustices the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.
His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay.
I'm not an expert on child support, so please weigh in if there are any inaccuracies here -- or confirm if it's true.
This is why it is very important for any man who finds himself in this position, whether he wants to or not, must retain an attorney with the intent and goal of having the mother declared unfit, and granting sole custody of the child to him.
Even if it isn't his child.
My logic? If she wants me to pay for a kid she knows full well I didn't create, she's obviously a piece of shit, and doesn't deserve a kid. In fact, I'll do a better job of raising the kid than she will.
And the best way to ensure I have an influence over that kid is to get it away from the mother permanently.
I'd bet that a lot of these cases would be dropped immediately when a competing custody motion appeared.
For these whores, it's all about the money. Make it apparent that you aren't gonna roll, and they might lose their meal ticket in the process, and they might go away.
brian at July 24, 2009 5:24 AM
Isn't it interesting? We have a Constituition that prohibits these things, and the Congress ignores it, and the President ignores it, and the Courts ignore it.
I do not condone, but begin to understand these people who go on killing sprees and wipe out their estranged families. I used to think they were all insane. Now I'm not so certain that some are not people who have been deprived of all hope.
MarkD at July 24, 2009 6:33 AM
Where are the Feminists? I guess the maxim "Follow The Money" applies here.
Toubrouk at July 24, 2009 6:49 AM
It's expensive so it would never happen, but I think an automatic paternity test at birth for every child would solve a lot of issues.
If the child is yours, you are responsible for it.
If the child isn't biologically yours, but you decide to raise it anyways, you are responsible for it... assuming the biological father, if he can be found, doesn't want to raise the child.
If the child isn't yours, and you don't want to raise it, you have an out at birth, and then it is the mother's reponsibility to find the father or not.
NicoleK at July 24, 2009 7:14 AM
The Bradley Amendment is very real and amongst other things is used to enforce prior child support claims that had been granted even if those claims are shown to be based on bogus information, and regardless of any event between the time was claim was ordered in court and the time the payee got back to a court to discuss new events.
jerry at July 24, 2009 8:50 AM
Glenn Sacks on the Bradley Amendment: Another problem is that, according to Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute, less than 5% of fathers who lose their jobs or become disabled are able to get downward modifications in their child support. In such cases arrearages mount quickly, as well as interest (10% or more in many states) and penalties. However, judges cannot remedy these injustices because the federal Bradley amendment bars them from retroactively forgiving child support arrearages.
jerry at July 24, 2009 8:55 AM
No man should have to pay for a kid that isn't his, plain and simple.
That said, would someone please introduce me into this world where women are getting away with so much child support. Maybe it's a thing among the rich or the poor but in the hanging-on-to-the-middle-class world where I live every single single mother is barely making do -- and all of them work. No one is getting rich off child support. More than a few are getting no child support at all. And I don't know any mom who has a spare $25,000 for a court fight to go and get it.
I've asked it before: How many of you men would willingly offer MORE money if your ex lost her job? Or is it just a case of decreasing it when your circumstances change?
JulieA at July 24, 2009 11:26 AM
JulieA, that sort of already happens, actually. There's not much hard data unfortunately, but nearly every non-custodial parent pays for expenses over and above the mandated support amount. I know this from my own experiences as a child. Fathers (we'll go with that since most non-custodial parents are fathers) often buy their kids new clothes, buy them toys, pay for medical and dental care, help with car payments or car insurance when they get old enough to drive, help with school expenses, etc., on top of the child support payments.
It's true that a lot of single mothers are just scraping by. But it's not like their exes are living the life of Riley either. The problem is, splitting the family up makes their living situation a lot less efficient; the old saying "two can live as cheaply as one" really is true, and a lot of couples find this out when they split. And at that point you have to look at which one of the couple made the decision to split the family. And statistically, that would most likely be the mother.
Cousin Dave at July 24, 2009 12:05 PM
I'll make one amendment to my statement: "nearly every non-custodial parent *who remains in their kids' lives* pays for expenses over and above the mandated support amount. " It's true that some non-custodial parents desert their children. But that's certainly not a majority.
Cousin Dave at July 24, 2009 12:09 PM
Dave - Sorry, but I still don't know a single mom who's living better under any standard than her ex. I don't know any ex who pays anything close to the real cost of raising a child -- which includes having to turn down work out of town, or overtime or just lose entire days when a kid's sick. I think it is true that a lot of non-custodial parents parent when it is convenient to them, which is not 2 a.m. on a Saturday when fevers are raging or New Years Eve when there are more fun options.
One last thing: Stop with the mothers most likely break up the family routine. It's tired and it's stupid. Numbers do not tell the story -- does he beat her, does he beat the kids, did he give her a sexually transmitted disease, did he spend all their savings on his girlfriend, etc. (And, yes, women can be the cheaters and the thieves, too). I'm arguing this on another threat but THIS STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS. It implies that a woman must stay under any circumstances, including a passive-aggressive man who is too cowardly to file himself. Seriously, if Mrs. Sanford files for divorce from her husband after he declared someone else his soulmate is that her fault? Cause the stats you keep citing will say it is.
JulieA at July 24, 2009 12:18 PM
Julie - I'm not keen to go stat hunting right now, but the last thing I read was that women initiated something like 80% of divorce proceedings, and the bulk of them were for the reason of "not happy any more" type things. Abuse and infidelity were minor blips in the data.
brian at July 24, 2009 12:25 PM
Even the reasons people cite for divorce aren't all that meaningful.
NY did not have a no-fault divorce at the time my ex and I split (not sure whether it does now), so I let him file under the excuse that I wasn't putting out anymore. The reality was that I'd asked him to leave after finding out he'd been trolling for other women. Again.
It was just cheaper and easier to do it that way because his mother worked for a divorce lawyer. I bet a lot of legal paperwork doesn't tell the whole story.
MonicaP at July 24, 2009 1:48 PM
I'm telling you, DNA tests at birth. Save a whole lotta money in the long run.
NicoleK at July 24, 2009 2:02 PM
"If the child isn't biologically yours, but you decide to raise it anyways, you are responsible for it..."
I'll buy that, long as you're living with the woman, after all, a man who treats a step child like a pariah is a sack of shit in the first place (same for a woman in the same situation by the way, so we're clear)
But if divorce or breakup occurs and he has to leave the house and has no further rights, why then?
For that matter, if he does decide to raise said child as his own, why shouldn't its actual father be paying for it in the first place regardless of the fact that someone else is raising the child?
I DO understand about the needs of the child, but children, however precious, are not the be all end all of the world. The truth of the matter is that children grow up and become adults, and if we perpetrate injustice and an unjust system on adults now, it is that same system that will be preying on those children when they CEASE TO BE children.
If we want to do something "For the children" give them a justice system that dispenses justice, that is more important than money. Anyone who says otherwise, has never been the victim of injustice.
Robert at July 24, 2009 3:02 PM
Since feminists are gung-ho about freeing women through child care from the "prison" and burden of rearing their own children so they can instead work, work, work, how about this?
We'll keep "no fault" divorce, but when a couple with children divorces, the kids are thereafter raised by a public child-rearing agency, with both the mother and father made wage-slaves (work camps, if necessary) to pay the expenses.
Nice and equal, and feminism gets a big win, right?
Jay R at July 24, 2009 3:11 PM
JulieA makes a good point about offering more if the ex loses their job.
Me, I'm required to pay mine 622 per month. I actually pay 1,000 plus pay for insurance, plus pay the kids allowances.
Most fathers who care for their children, and who trust that their ex will use what they are given for its intended purpose, and whom can afford to do so, will give a little extra when possible and might not even begrudge some help on the side if the mother gets ill, needs glasses, things like that.
Unfortunately JulieA, the reverse question is not pleasant, how many women would rather just quit work and ask for more support? How many use the money their ex provides FOR the kids, vs. taking care of what they want while letting the kids do without?
How many lie about paternity because the actual father is a dead beat they know won't pay?
How many will interfere with an actual father's custodial or visitation rights, as if he is supposed to be only a cash machine, not an integral part of their child's life?
How many mothers who retain custody of their children primarily because they are women, are blatantly abusing their children, and yet are seldom if ever called on it, vs how many men are presumed guilty simply by the sin of being men?
How many divorces, initiated by women, which wrench brutally away the presence of good fathers, are initiated solely because her own happiness is more significant than that of their previously growing and thriving children? Is that not selfish and destructive on the same scale as a man who abandons his children for some hot secretary?
I must ask you JulieA, how often do you believe these things come to pass? When they do, how significantly do you count them? If you think them rare, I count you lucky for your sheltered innocence. If you think them insignificant when they do occur, I think you biased and irrational beyond redemption.
Yes the system must protect children and see that they are provided for, but children are not the only parties to our lives, and they are not the only ones deserving protection under the law.
The abusers of children must be put away, be they male or female.
Those who commit fraud and or perjury, must be put away just as surely and the damaged recompensed in full at the expense of the perjurer.
Those who steal away children from devoted parents for the sake of their own happiness against the interests of the welfare of the children, should not be granted custody of said children, let alone a chunk of the other parties income.
Robert at July 24, 2009 3:24 PM
I'm with NicoleK. Mandatory and immediate.
Robert at July 24, 2009 3:28 PM
Or as a cheaper option, blood tests as a start, if blood types match then a DNA test, if blood types dont match then there is no point in preforming a more expensive test you already know the answer to
lujlp at July 24, 2009 4:42 PM
I am all for penalties for women who lie about paternity. I believe they should pay the money back, though in all likelihood, the only women the law will ever force to do so are those who never even had the baby in question - see the case of Violet Trevino in New Mexico. (She even kidnapped a baby - very briefly - and tried to pass it off as her own. She went to jail but got out recently for good behavior after just four or five years.)
And yes, the law needs to make it harder for a woman to lie so she can't just pick a name out of a phone book and be believed. (See the Reason article on Tony Pierce of California - you won't believe it.)
Child support paid by noncustodial mothers should go without saying.
However, when it comes to a man who didn't want to be a father but is, better that he bear the burden than the taxpayer - and no, I don't believe that both should be let off the hook.
If that seems so horrifically unfair to some, whatever happened to the idea that prevention is better than cure? I.e., why do we sometimes see men on TV demanding the right to abandon their own flesh and blood, but NEVER men on TV demanding the right to better male birth control?
(Not to mention that men using the new methods would be alerted to paternity fraud a lot sooner!)
Besides, as Katha Pollitt pointed out in 1998, any man could get out of paying support for an out-of-wedlock child by saying "she lied about being on the Pill, Your Honor." If we let him.
BTW, while I realize that Big Pharma has plenty of reason to believe that new male birth control methods will not be a hugely profitable industry due to STDs and the continued need for condom use, it just MIGHT think again if a lot of men's rights activists - and ordinary men - would be willing to go on TV and the radio and SAY that they really do want the new methods, will pay for them and use them, if only because they and their wives agree that they simply cannot afford more children in this economy and/or don't want them. But do they? No.
(For a nice long discussion on that, search for "Sorry ladies, the male birth control pill is not about you" by George Dvorsky.)
Oh, and for the record, I've asked both Marc Rudov and Bernard Chapin to speak up in their columns regarding new MBC methods and the benefits that would come from them. They both responded - and made it pretty clear they're not interested. This is inconsistent for both of them, given their continued emphasis on men's need to stand up for themselves, however uncomfortable it might be.
lenona at July 24, 2009 6:36 PM
I.e., why do we sometimes see men on TV demanding the right to abandon their own flesh and blood, because they want the ame rights women have
but NEVER men on TV demanding the right to better male birth control?
because its not as good a story as those horrible guys who want to abandon their kids, as a side note I'd be willing to bet the guys who want better MBC are the same ones argueing for a legal temination of responsibility and that half of the agrgument is edited out of the final copy
And will all due deference to Katha Pollitt's argumrent, women at that time were have the courts force men to pay support to children that werent even theirs
lujlp at July 24, 2009 11:16 PM
I.e., why do we sometimes see men on TV demanding the right to abandon their own flesh and blood
_________________________
lujip: because they want the ame rights women have
____________________________
And two wrongs make a right?
If you're talking about the right of a woman to leave her newborn at a fire station, I'm willing to bet that at least 90% of such babies do not have fathers who want to raise them. Not that there's an easy way to confirm that. If you're talking about a woman who doesn't want to pay child support or be involved with the baby when the father does, I don't know what the laws are once the father HAS custody, but as I said, of course mothers should pay support.
Oh, and in some states - the majority? - the father who didn't want a child has to pay support even when the mother is willing to let him off the hook, so it's not, as some argue, more about the mother's rights than the child's rights. I.e., the mother can't plunge her child into poverty just because she doesn't want the father around.
_______________________
but NEVER men on TV demanding the right to better male birth control?
_______________________
lujip: because its not as good a story as those horrible guys who want to abandon their kids, as a side note I'd be willing to bet the guys who want better MBC are the same ones argueing for a legal temination of responsibility and that half of the agrgument is edited out of the final copy
__________________
That's straw-grasping. If censorship like that were going on, at the very least, it would get mentioned at Glenn Sacks' site. (Believe me, I watch for things like that.) As I said, even the more brazen MRAs like Rudov and Chapin aren't even interested; and they haven't bothered to do any columns or Youtube videos on the subject. (To give you an idea of just how brazen Rudov can be, he once said - on Fox? - that no adult American woman gets pregnant nowadays unless, deep down, she wants to. So a woman who uses two methods and gets pregnant anyway must have wanted to, otherwise she would have used three? Please.)
And when I've suggested that men take their campaigns for better MBC to certain TV or radio stations, men very often whine that it's too much expensive work. (Megan, in the Dvorsky thread responded to that: "You say you don't have the time or money. Really? Do you think African-Americans in Montgomery had the time or money to boycott the buses for 318 days? Do you think women had the time or money to go to jail in order to get the vote? And, sorry if you view this differently, but I have a feeling that getting male birth control would not be as controversial or consuming as either of the above actions.")
Read the column and responses here.
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/comments/dvorsky20080501/
George Dvorsky himself said in it: "Men are clearly not showing Big Pharma that they want a male pill."
(Check out Dave's hilarious, satirical entry on January 14th.)
lenona at July 25, 2009 4:25 AM
Robert, I guess what I meant by "raise" was "adopt". I wasn't talking about stepparents who help raise the kids while they are married to the mother.
I guess what I mean is all kids should have one man and one woman responsible for them at birth. If both parents are willing, the child can be adopted by someone else. (I don't think it should be legal to give up the child without the father's consent, unless he is unknown and impossible to find).
If either parent doesn't want to take care of the kid, they should pay child support to the other... UNLESS someone can be found to take over their role... ie, if the stepparent wants to adopt the kid.
If the stepparent DOES want to adopt the kid, they are responsible for life.
This still raises problems if the father is unknown, but that's a different issue.
NicoleK at July 25, 2009 9:40 AM
(To give you an idea of just how brazen Rudov can be, he once said - on Fox? - that no adult American woman gets pregnant nowadays unless, deep down, she wants to. So a woman who uses two methods and gets pregnant anyway must have wanted to, otherwise she would have used three? Please.)
I wanted to add: When it comes to couples who rely mainly on withdrawal and/or rhythm - if that - why can't we just admit that BOTH men and women are just plain dumb and lazy when it comes to taking real precautions, however much they don't want babies? As a journalist wrote after Magic Johnson's revelation of his HIV status in 1991, it wasn't going to get many more young people to use condoms or have less sex, because people would rather risk their lives than deny themselves pleasure - e.g. just see how many people still start smoking and won't quit.
lenona at July 25, 2009 10:41 AM
Leave a comment