Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    
      The courts do what the laws of the land direct them to do. The laws
    close their eyes to the non-cust parents needs for survival, all in the
    name of " We only see the child".
    
    
    David

    
    re .0
    
    >how can the courts in all of their wisdom put fathers behind the 8
    >ball?
    
    Because the courts, and legislatures, and Congress are listening to
    those who have the most political clout.  Unless/until enough men
    find themselves in enough pain and/or find enough courage to stand
    up to this Leftist McCarthyism called Political Correctness and
    organize into a political force, it will only get worse.
    
    fred();

    
    
     -1
    
     Aint that the truth.
    
    
    David
    
    

    Fathers are expected to pay so much for child support because our
    society still regards men as breadwinners and women as nurturers
    (and because men still get paid most of the money in our society.)
    
    If the people who make most of the money in our society (men) don't
    use it to support their children, then the rest of the people who
    make most of the money in our society (men) pay taxes to support
    some other men's children.  (Women pay these taxes, too, of course.)
    
    As long as men are recognized as making most of the money in our
    society, they will get stuck with big bills for child support.
    When the pay scales are more equal, men will be relieved of much
    of this burden (as well as the unfair burden of having to run so
    much of society without women's capable help.)
    
    Men need a rest from all this responsibility - when more men are
    willing to share it with women, they'll get the rest they so richly
    deserve.

    
    re .4.  
    
    I don't understand.  Are you trying to justify this biggotry or
    are you trying to prove my point for me??
    
    fred();

    RE: .5  Fred
    
    > I don't understand.  Are you trying to justify this biggotry or
    > are you trying to prove my point for me??
    
    The bigots I've identified are the ones who take a paternal and/or
    demeaning attitude toward women (by discriminating against women in
    the workplace.)
    
    These same folks who support a system that gives most of the money
    to men (as traditional, family-value-type breadwinners) are the ones
    most responsible for making men pay big bucks for child support.
    
    After all, in the traditional view point, men are SUPPOSED to make
    the money and take care of families.  Women are supposed to nurture
    and be supported.  It's this traditional view point that keeps men
    in the stranglehold of running society by themselves (without women's
    capable help) while keeping men on the line for paying much of the
    bills.
    
    When women get equal rights, all this will change.

    This conference has lots of strings that say that men get financially
    screwed by divorce in general, and by support in particular. So there
    are lots of anecdotes about women living high off the hog, men living
    in a room and paying more than they earn in support payments, etc.
    
    It seems to me that there is enough standard statistical evidence to
    show that women in general earn less than men, and are therefore likely
    to be worse off after divorce than men. And there is specific evidence
    that the majority of men have an increase in their standard of living
    after they divorce, while the majority of women have a decrease.
    
    Am I inferring too much if I say that I detect the implication that
    these anecdotes prove that men in  *general* get the short end of the
    stick as a result of support payments? 
    
    Kit

    re .6
    
    Oh, I see.  You're trying to justify this by reciting ( once again )
    the Politcally-Correct Feminist Litny.
    
    fred();

    re .8
    
    It's only by being a "deadbeat" that a man can maintain a standard
    of living after divorce.  It's the honest ones who pay who keep 
    getting shafted.  I believe that if you factored in the "child support"
    payments, you'd see a dramatic shift in the standard of living
    and disposable income.
    
    fred

    RE: .9  Fred
    
    > Oh, I see.  You're trying to justify this by reciting ( once again )
    > the Politcally-Correct Feminist Litny.
    
    Labeling-then-condemning is a trick tried by McCarthy some decades
    ago (and most folks see through it these days.)
    
    Try some other tactic.  This is the 1990s.
    

    RE: .8  Kit
    
    > So there are lots of anecdotes about women living high off the hog, 
    > men living in a room and paying more than they earn in support payments, 
    > etc.
    
    Nearly all the divorce/child_support anecdotes I've ever heard from
    women have been horror stories.  Myself, I never received a solitary
    dime of support for my 21 year old son (not even once.)
    
    The woman I know who's done the "best" (in this situation) had her
    ex run off without leaving a trace for around 4 years, then come back
    to pay 1/10th the amount he was supposed to pay (his monthly child
    support was $500 and he was/is a senior commercial pilot with a salary 
    somewhere in the low 6-figure range.)  
    
    He only agreed to go back to paying $500 when the woman was laid off
    her job and sought food stamps (and told him, "Gee, they asked me 
    almost nothing about myself but wanted to know ALL about you.")  Then
    he finally went back to paying the amount he was ordered to pay 10
    years earlier (and hadn't paid in 6 years.)  All the back child support
    is lost forever.
    
    Like I said, hers is the best story I've ever heard (from a woman I've
    known personally.)
    
    All the women who live "high on the hog" from child support must spend
    it all in the French Riviera or something.  I've never met such women.

    
>    Try some other tactic.  This is the 1990s.
    
    Then how about if your argument were true, then in the last 20
    years or so that woment *have* made tremendous gains ( maybe
    not perfect yet, but that isn't the argument here ) I would 
    expece to see equal gains in the rights of fathers and children
    in these cases.  Since, in face, what I see is glaringly opposite
    of that, then I conclude that your argument holds about as much
    water as an Iraqi tank.
    
    What I see in your argument is "Since the world isn't perfect
    for women yet, then  you don't have any right to complain about
    anything". Ie. Politically Correct Leftist McCarthyism.
    
    fred();
    
    

    By the way, my friend's ex (the commercial airline pilot) was busy
    buying a huge house, a boat and a small airplane while he paid 1/10th
    of his child support.  My friend and her son lived in a tiny apartment
    while she worked and went to school nights to finish her Masters (to
    get a better job so she could provide a better environment for her
    child.)
    
    She paid a monthly fee to get a beeper used only by her child so he
    would always be able to locate her (even if he was at the sitter's.)  
    The normal amount of child support would have helped her out a lot
    (but was nothing even remotely close to the way he and his new wife
    and children were living.)

    
    
    -1
    
      That's not an ideal way for a Father to act. But their are stories
    on both sides of the issue.. We need to move to a system of joint
    custody (with no cash awards either way)..
    
    
    David

    RE: .13  Fred
    
    >  -< If the label fits.... >-
    
    Well, I'm glad to see that you (at least) admit that you're using
    the famous McCarthy tactic (otherwise known as McCarthyism.)  Now
    you can stop with the labels (they don't help your case at all.)
    
    > Then how about if your argument were true, then in the last 20
    > years or so that woment *have* made tremendous gains ( maybe
    > not perfect yet, but that isn't the argument here ) I would 
    > expece to see equal gains in the rights of fathers and children
    > in these cases. 
    
    Twenty or thirty years ago, most women didn't DARE leave their
    marriages (because the prospects of reasonable employement were
    so much worse than they are now.)  Back then, though, women most
    often got "ALIMONY" (even from husbands with AVERAGE incomes.)
    Nowadays, only the very rich pay alimony - so things HAVE actually
    improved for men.
    
    > What I see in your argument is "Since the world isn't perfect
    > for women yet, then  you don't have any right to complain about
    > anything". Ie. Politically Correct Leftist McCarthyism.
    
    What I see is that you've put quoted words in my mouth for me (YOUR
    WORDS, of course) then used the McCarthyism tactic of labeling-then-
    condemning.
    
    Nothing new, in other words.

    re .16
    
    >What I see is that you've put quoted words in my mouth for me (YOUR
    >WORDS, of course) then used the McCarthyism tactic of labeling-then-
    >condemning.
    
    What I said was my interpretation of your argument.  What I see
    as you tactic is still "you don't have a right to complain" and
    "your're wrong because you don't support my viewpoint".  It is
    the same old Feminist and McCarthyism tactic that you have used
    in this file for at least the last two years.  Give it a rest,
    maybe we could come up with some solutions rather that yet another
    regurgitation of Feminist Dogma.
    
    fred();

    By the way, just to make my position clear - men DO have the right
    to complain.  (Everybody does.  Of course!)
    
    However, the numbers sometimes just don't make sense (when it comes 
    to stories about women living "high off the hog" on child support.)
    
    If a man makes $50,000 and gives up 25% of it for child support, how
    much goes to the woman (and children)?  Even if the support amounted
    to $1000 per month, who do you know (in this economy) who lives the
    rich life on $1000 per month (unless the person is already rich?)
    
    I do feel sorry for men who get unfair judgments in child support
    cases (and I strongly believe that the fairest solution is joint
    custody with both parents sharing the expenses as equally as possible)
    - but I don't see our paternalistic society going for it as long as women
    are stuck in the role of "nurturer-not-breadwinner."

    RE: .18  Fred
    
    > What I said was my interpretation of your argument.
    
    If you're going to put words into my mouth for me, don't use quotes.
    It's highly dishonest.
    
    > What I see as you tactic is still "you don't have a right to complain" 
    > and "your're wrong because you don't support my viewpoint". 
    
    Well, I'm sorry for your ignorance about my views.  (See my reply
    .17 - I *do* support men's right to complain, AND I support joint
    custody with as equal as possible financial responsibility.)
    
    I do, however, still believe that the underlying problem (in all this)
    is the paternalistic view our society holds about women.  I do have
    my own right to hold this opinion.

    
    re .0
    
    Seen enough to answer your question yet?
    
    fred();

    RE: .21  Fred
    
    > Seen enought to answer your question yet?
    
    Yes, I'm sure he does.
    
    Isn't it shocking and horrifying to discover that a feminist believes
    that the fairest solution to child custody is JOINT CUSTODY WITH BOTH
    PARENTS SHARING THE EXPENSES AS EQUALLY AS POSSIBLE???
    
    Wow, how unfair.  I should probably be shot.

    
    
     -1
    
       Your right! And it is refreshing to find common ground. Joint
    custody is the best way.. Neither parent becomes unmarketable with
    this approach (IMHO)
    
    DAvid

    RE: .23
    
    > Your right!  And it is refreshing to find common ground.  Joint
    > custody is the best way.. Neither parent becomes unmarketable with
    > this approach (IMHO)
    
    (Whew!  For a second, I thought you were agreeing that I should be
    shot...  :>  Just kidding!!)
    
    Speaking of joint custody, I've heard of some very creative agreements
    that really allowed the parents to share the full responsibility of
    finishing raising their kids (without having to spend wasted time
    at odds.)  One person in this very conference is a PRIME example
    of this, in fact.
    
    It can be done!  It takes a lot of maturity (and courts that are 
    willing to see both parents as EQUAL nurturers and wage-earners.)

>    
>    If a man makes $50,000 and gives up 25% of it for child support, how
>    much goes to the woman (and children)?  

I would expect 0% to go to the woman; 100% to go to the child(ren).

>    to $1000 per month, who do you know (in this economy) who lives the
>    rich life on $1000 per month (unless the person is already rich?)

So, imagine what the 'rich life' is like having to pay out $1000 a month tp
someone.  and needing more han one job to do so.

    RE: .25  Joe
    
    > I would expect 0% to go to the woman; 100% to go to the child(ren).
    
    Unless the children have a joint checking account for themselves, the 
    actual check would go to their mother.  (This is all I meant.)
    
    >> to $1000 per month, who do you know (in this economy) who lives the
    >> rich life on $1000 per month (unless the person is already rich?)

    > So, imagine what the 'rich life' is like having to pay out $1000 a 
    > month tp someone. and needing more han one job to do so.
    
    Well, then we agree that the woman is not getting rich off this money.
    (Neither of them are rich at this point.)
    
    Unless the guy was wealthy while they were married, no woman is going
    to live "high off the hog" from getting a small percentage of the
    TOTAL they lived on when they were married.  Agreed?

>    
>    Unless the children have a joint checking account for themselves, the 
>    actual check would go to their mother.  (This is all I meant.)

Then there should an account for the kids;  money taken out must be
demonstrably be used for the kids (since I will be out of town, they
will have to demostrate it to someone else :-).
    
>    Well, then we agree that the woman is not getting rich off this money.
>   (Neither of them are rich at this point.)

Rich is a relative term.  Would that 1000$ be there if the spouse never left?
Certainly, it is INCREASED income to the mother, don't you agree?
    
>    Unless the guy was wealthy while they were married, no woman is going
>    to live "high off the hog" from getting a small percentage of the
>    TOTAL they lived on when they were married.  Agreed?

No.  Since there are cases where the women IS living 'higher-off-the-hog',
I cannot agree.  Also, you only seem to address the impact on the woman
and not on the person holding multiple jobs to GET the 1000$.  I, of course,
do the opposite (look at the man's side, that is).

What I do see in real life is people wanting to hunt down 'dead beats', and
not considering whether the payments are fair or not for either side.  Just
because a court has decided that x$ need be paid does not make it fair nor
equitable.

.16> Well, I'm glad to see that you (at least) admit that you're using
.16> the famous McCarthy tactic (otherwise known as McCarthyism.)  Now
    
    That because McCarthyism is a good respone to Hitlerism.

    Suzanne,
    
    The reality here is that men are giving up *much more* than 25% of
    their income.  I'm currently doing research on an article on this. 
    What I have found is that the courts levy 33% of their *gross* salary
    and this works out to be 65% of their net.  Someone else who is better
    with figures can tell you how this calculation comes to me.  I've got
    the figures, which unfortunately I can't share here due to
    confidentiality, but the courts are really zapping the men financially.
    
    Also, there are many women out there that are so angry during and after
    the divorce that they use the children as weapons.  Visitation rights
    are denied over and over again, the children here what lousy men their
    fathers are, etc.  This is the other side of the coin.
    
    I see both sides clearly.  My ex disappeared when my son was roughly a
    year old (we separated when my son was a month old).  Until my son was
    12 years old I did not hear from nor receive any child support from my
    ex.  He surfaced then and my son decided he wanted to live with is
    father.  He has been there for three years now.  And I'm paying my ex
    child support.  I will probably never see the $15,000 my ex owes me and
    that's ok.  I'm glad that my son has a chance to get to know his father
    and reclaim that part of his heritage.
    
    To jump back to what I was saying earlier, I'm beginning to believe
    that alot of men walk away because the system makes it so hard for them
    to be fathers.  So many men love their children dearly and are
    prevented from being fathers due to our system.  There are those men
    too who just walk away because they don't care.  Those are the *real*
    dead-beat dads.
    
    Karen

    Oh and Suzanne, I do believe that it takes a great deal of maturity for
    the adults to decide what is best for the children and I'm glad to hear
    that your friends were able to do that.  
    
    Karen

	The problem with this whole blinkin' discussion is that
	the justification for sticking it to some INDIVIDUAL
	FATHER is a statistical measurement of income FOR
	A WHOLE GROUP !

	If we're gonna play this game, it has to be played the
	same all the way across the board:

	as: 50% of women are work-at-home mothers, so ALL WOMEN
		MUST BE TREATED AS WORK-AT-HOME MOTHERS....

	This is a crock, and if the rules were applied this way
	toward minorities, then there'd be screaming like you've
	never heard.

	If the justification for "soaking the Dads" is that men
	IN GENERAL make more money than women.....then it is wrong.

	Each case must be weighed individually....else we find
	ourselves treating individuals by group measurements.

	Blacks *measured against whites --as a group* score lower
	on standardized tests.  Applying the justifications above,
	do we deny blacks entry to universities ?

	Get real....get consistent.


	Steve H

    Thought I'd add a reply to this note from the "child's" point-of-view.
    
    My parents were divorced when I was real young.  Both my parents had 
    DECENT jobs (read: employed and getting by OK, but NOT rich).  They 
    had roughly the same income.  (My mother made a little more money)
    My mother got custody of me and my father of course was ordered to pay
    child support until I was 18.  I don't KNOW how much he was ordered to
    pay but he payed it. (and payed and payed and payed...)
    
    Throughout my entire childhood, as far back as I can remember, my
    father ALWAYS lived in a ROOM somewhere.  For a couple of years, he
    actually had his own bathroom!
    
    My mother and I lived in the house (PAID FOR!).  Nothing fancy, but 
    more than comfortable for two people.  My mother worked full time AND
    went to school full time.  (no...she WAS never home)  The only reason
    I mention this is that she SOMEHOW managed to pay ALL her education
    expenses, ALL the household expenses AND bought a NEW house and two
    NEW cars while I was growing up.  (unbelievable)
    
    Meanwhile, my father never had a car YOUNGER than six years old.  I 
    REALLY feel my father got SCR__ED by the courts.  (no, I have nothing
    against my mother, just feel sorry for DAD)
    
    BUT on the OTHER side of this issue, my best friend that I grew up
    with,
    
    Her parents were also divorced.  Her father is a
    MULTI-MULTI-MILLIONAIRE and definitely one of those guys who'd
    fit the definition of a "deadbeat Dad".  He's never paid ONE CENT 
    of the measly support he was ordered to pay...I should add, until
    she was grown up already.  Shortly after she struck out on her own,
    he had a fifty-plus thousand dollar sports car delivered to her 
    doorstep.  But that's it...
    
    If the courts REALLY try to balance the quality of living between the
    custodial parent and the non-custodial parent, I'd REALLY like to
    see the formula they use.  I don't think it's really that the mother's
    are getting rich, but rather the father's are getting poor when they
    are forced to devote TOO much of their income to slightly elevate
    the mother and child's quality of life.
    
    anyway, this was MY experience, from the child's point of view...
    

    RE: .27  Joe
    
    > Rich is a relative term.  Would that 1000$ be there if the spouse 
    > never left? Certainly, it is INCREASED income to the mother, don't 
    > you agree?
    
    It's only an increase to the mother if the father wasn't providing
    this much support to the family in the first place.  If, when married,
    he kept all his money and made the wife pay all the living expenses
    and bills on her salary alone, then the $1000 would be an increase.
    
    If they lived on their combined incomes, then the $1000 is LESS than
    the mother would have been seeing when they were married.

re .33, if anecdotal evidence counts, I'm currently living in a situation
where my SO and I are sharing our living expenses, and she is raising a 
4-year old son with some child suport from his father.  Now, neither my 
SO nor her ex make tons of money.  Yet he has a substance abuse problem,
and consistently had trouble making his expenses meet because he blew his
income on dope and booze.  She knew what was going on because she lived 
with him for seven years of marriage and was tired of supporting his bad
habits; and he missed some of his payments.  So she had his wages attached,
because the expenses for the 4-yr-old don't stop just 'cause daddy got too
stoned last month.  I wonder if Erik will grow up with a view of his mother
as slanted as yours is, just because she knows how to allocate her resources 
responsibly while his father doesn't.

DougO

    <i wonder if Erik...>
    
    Not if you marry his mother and adopt him. I hope for Erik's sake you
    _can_ and will marry his mother. Or agree to go on with your lives so
    she can find somebody who will love her, marry her and share the
    parenting of her son.
    
    a hope, not a criticism.

    
    re .35
    
    From what is happening, apparently anaecotal evidence only counts
    in one direction.  I can come up with any number of anecodets of
    the Custodial Parent blowing the the "child support" on drugs,
    cloths, boyfrends, etc and the child not seeing a dime if it.
    If these deadbeat-father-hunters were really concerned about
    the children, you'd think that they'd be more conderned about
    making the CP accountable for the "support" or trying to 
    increase accessability to the children by the non-custodial parent.
    Both statistically proven to increase the non-custodial parent's
    willingness to provide support.  However, both this cases have 
    been stated as specific non-goals of the "committee" that recently 
    reported Congress.
    
    fred();

well, Herb, I do share the parenting.  And I don't think Erik will grow up
with so little understanding; he sees his father every other weekend, and
he'll have plenty of opportunities to learn about him.  But its very plain
that just because two people have similar income levels and one pays child
support, as in our case and in .33's case, it isn't the child support that
necessarily accounts for the huge disparity in living standards.  It can
just as easily be the ability to responsibly manage one's limited assets
that makes all the difference.

DougO

    But fred,
    
    My ex has had full visitation (apparently more than he wanted) for the
    last 10 years.  It has been 9 years since I saw a support check.  
    
    His standard of living is much less than mine in spite of the fact that
    he has a masters degree, and I flounder along with an associates.  This
    is his choice, and was one of the contributing factors to our divorce. 
    I really don't think he cares about his daughter, except as a matter of
    pride when she does well at something. 
    
    My personal opinion is still that non-payment of child support is an
    indirect form of child abuse.  The thousands of dollars he owes her will
    never be repaid, and it has impacted Lolita's standard of living,
    almost stopped her from going to college, and impacted the relationship
    between Lolita, myself and my current so, who like many second partners
    really resents NCP's who don't kick in a little towards their share of
    suport.  This hurts all members of the custodial family, not just an
    ex-spouse.  
    
    meg   

>    
>    It's only an increase to the mother if the father wasn't providing
>    this much support to the family in the first place.  

And my point is that if the father has to get a second+ job to make the payments
then he IS providing EXTRA support that he would not have been without the 
support payments.  And if you look, you'll see that happening.

    RE: .40  Joe
    
    >> It's only an increase to the mother if the father wasn't providing
    >> this much support to the family in the first place.  

    > And my point is that if the father has to get a second+ job to make 
    > the payments then he IS providing EXTRA support that he would not 
    > have been without the support payments.  And if you look, you'll see 
    > that happening.
    
    It's only EXTRA money to the mother and children if the support amounts
    to more than he was providing to the family when the marriage was 
    intact.  Otherwise, the mother and children now have less support than
    they had during the marriage.
    

    Joe, if the family was living on $XXXX.xx per month when the marriage
    was intact, the family is living on LESS than $XXXX.xx now that the
    father's income is no longer included:  $XXXX.xx minus father's portion.
    
    Unless the $1000 is more than the father's original portion, then
    the family is living on LESS than the original $XXXX.xx (even with
    the $1000 per month in support.)
    

    
    DougO
    
    > I wonder if Eric will grow up with a view of his mother as slanted
    
      Not as long as he has the benefit of unbiased intellects
    around. Those who will lead him to the real,unslanted,correct view!
     < add vomiting sounds >
                                                              
    David

     re .39 
    
>    My personal opinion is still that non-payment of child support is an
>    indirect form of child abuse.  The thousands of dollars he owes her will
>    never be repaid, and it has impacted Lolita's standard of living,
>    almost stopped her from going to college, and impacted the relationship
>    between Lolita, myself and my current so, who like many second partners
>    really resents NCP's who don't kick in a little towards their share of
>    suport.  This hurts all members of the custodial family, not just an
>    ex-spouse.  
    
    Would not the spending of the "child support" by the CP be equally
    a form of child abuse.  
    
    When my ex had custody, I paid every cent.  Even when she *admitted*
    on the stand that her boyfriend was unemployed and living off of the
    child support and AFDC.  The court did *nothing*.
    
    Now that I am the CP, I have gotten *one* check in the last two years.
    
    fred();

    On top of it, this is support for a child who the father presumably
    loved and cared for.  Not paying child support to get back at one's
    spouse is abusing a child for revenge on an adult.  
    
    I am tired of hearing the excuses my ex and one of his cronies gives to
    other people about why they don't pay support.  
    
    1.  It would just go on the ex's back.  This said about 2 women who
    lives in the standard engineering wardrobe of jeans or shorts, and
    flannel shirts or t-shirts.  Yep I really spend a fortune on clothes.  
    
    2.  It helps supports her new so and other baby.  Never mind that his
    non-payment of support has been subsidizing his relationships at the
    expense of his daughter.  
    
    3.  I never wanted a kid in the first place.  Then why in the seven
    secret names of the goddess did you not use a condom for back up of her
    birth control, and why do you whine about the fact that you never see
    your daughter because your schedule and hers don't mesh now that she
    has graduated from high school?  Or in my friends case, why are you now
    trying to start a custodial issue, when you haven't contacted your
    daughter in almost a year, and you drive within a mile of her home
    daily?
    
    Please, no more excuses..  Pay your share or as much as you can, it is
    only fair to your kids.
    
    Meg, who will make sure support is paid through the courts should she
    ever wind up in a break up with another so.

    
    
    > It can just as easily be the ability to responsibly manage one's
    > limited assets that make all the difference
    
      DougO,taking your situation aside, is it  your opinion that
    men are complaining about unfair child support payments, cuz
    they do not manage their resources responsibly? If it is, please
    do give us a brief list of your source material that supports
    your theory.. Or the name of your pharmacist :-)
    
    
    David

    re .45
    
    Unfortunately this isn't a one sided problem.  However, CP's in
    your position have gotten the lions share of the legislation
    an assistance.  I'm not saying that you don't deserve the help.
    I'm saying that the system is one-sided and extremely hypocritical.
    
    fred();

    As far as the ex spending child support.  when I got CS it just about
    covered three weeks of day-care a month so that I could afford to
    finish out  school and then so I could afford to keep the job I got. 
    that was it.  While there are probably abuses, I have very seldom seen
    a support award that realistically pays for much if even half of what
    it costs to raise a child.  
    
    Remeber, CS includes, but is not limited to, housing, food, a safe
    place to be while CP is working or getting training to work, medical
    care, dental care, clothing, the occaisional trip to a park, movie or
    zoo, the tooth fairy, and a host of other expenses it takes to raise a
    growing child.
    
    Meg

    
    
    Meg,
    
      The non-custodial parent has pretty much the same needs also.The
    courts generally don't give a damn about this.. I know a guy here
    that has to pay 1/2 his salary in child support AND put his x
    thru college.. There is something wrong with the system and I wish
    that those persons who going running up to every great cause spewing
    out " I will bleed for you " could do the same for these other
    injustices ( I'm rambling,I know :-) )
    
    
    David

    I think I misexpressed my hope by tying it to <i wonder if Erik...>
    
    I hope for Erik's sake you _can_ and will marry his mother. Or agree to
    go on with your lives so she can find somebody who will love her, marry
    her and share the parenting of her son.
    
    My hope is centered around him having two healthy and permanent
    parental relationships with the man and woman he is living with. 

>>>>>>I would expect 0% to go to the woman; 100% to go to the child(ren).

I hear this complaint so often...and it makes so little sense to me...if 
the woman has the children living with her, she has to pay the additional
rent to provide room for them to live, she has to provide the food for them
to eat, the shampoo, soap, laundry soap, clothes, towel, blankets, sheets,
pillows, and furniture, etc.  Just HOW is a woman to spend the child
support ONLY ON THE CHILDREN and not end up living in the same residence
as the child???  Is she supposed to buy food for them and separate it into
completely separate meals????  How much time does a working woman have in
a day that she should cook TWO completely separate meals - and label
everything in the refrigerator, HIS and HERS???  And make sure that the
household supplies for cleaning be labeled HIS and HERS.

Yes, there are probably some women who buy new shoes for themselves and
their children go hungry...but, I've never met them...and I know ALOT of
divorced mothers.  There cannot be too many of them out there.
The divorced mothers I know buy used clothes at garage sales so their 
children can have shoes when they need them.  They work long hours AND pay 
$60.00 PER CHILD/PER WEEK or MORE for child care so they CAN work....and 
they make alot less than their ex-husbands.  If they don't work because 
they cannot afford the child care, then the husbands complain that they are 
"deadbeats".  They are the ones who clean up after the children, and the 
ex-husbands complain because the kids aren't hermetically sealed and 
sparkling when the weekend visit rolls around..as if any kid stays
clean for more than 5 minutes!  Sometimes they even send along unwashed
or unironed clothes to daddy's new wife - but, I've never known these women to
get more than 6 hours sleep a night, nor do they lay around and watch
TV at night.  They do laundry, make lunches, clean bathrooms, and try to
keep it together.  Their kids get messy sometimes....but they have a place
to live and food to eat...and their mothers are VERY tired at the end of
a day.

And, I've also noticed that a great majority of the men who complain about
the money so bitterly still manage to afford to re-marry and start a
second family....and buy homes and have cars that run reliably...now that
is a luxury that some women I know could break into tears over.


The bottom line is...when two people with children get a divorce the bills
to run two households are HIGHER...and neither parent wins unless they
WORK TOGETHER to take care of the children.  And that means that both
parents have to sacrifice....if a man's standard of living doesn't go
down a little, at least, once he is divorced, then he wasn't living to
his affordable standard while married - or he isn't paying his fair share.

Perhaps you should consider how expensive it is to support a child BEFORE
you start a family....and perhaps you should focus on making it easy for
your spouse to get a better education so he/she can earn a better living
should you end up divorced or dead.  That would be a good way to deal
with these problems before they come up.

    
    
    -1
    
     And as always it must be pointed out that the horror stories can
    go both ways. Once again supporting the idea of joint custody
    relationships vs  custodial and non-custodial roles.. Then we could
    discuss the idea of the Non Cus Parent placing the funds into a
    checking requiring the custodial to write checks for all purchases
    used for children, including a certain amount for misc.. It's not that
    tough to figure out a responsible way to take care of the child that
    does not screw one parent or the other.. I suspect those who make all
    sorts of arguements against it are the ones that would go thru the
    money withdrawls..
    
    Sincerely,
    
    A non-custodial parent who loves his son, and his sons mommy..
    

re .43, David, your insults are uncalled for.  You do what seems right to 
you; if sneering at other parents is your style, I feel for your child.

re .46,

>      DougO,taking your situation aside, is it  your opinion that
>    men are complaining about unfair child support payments, cuz
>    they do not manage their resources responsibly? 

My earlier note had enough information to show that no, I don't believe 
this is always true; though I certainly know it is true in some cases.

re .50, Herb, I do not believe in the institution of marriage for myself.
I have many reasons for this personal belief, and I'll even discuss them
in an appropriate topic; but I believe them tangential to this discussion.
I have developed and will continue to develop a 'permanent relationship'
with both my SO and her son, who have known me for over 3 years and lived
with me for over a year.

DougO

>I hear this complaint so often...and it makes so little sense to me...if 
>the woman has the children living with her, she has to pay the additional
>rent to provide room for them to live,

Unless of course they got a house out of the divorce.  (yes, then it is 
mortgage, but sometimes THAT is less than renting).

>Just HOW is a woman to spend the child
>support ONLY ON THE CHILDREN and not end up living in the same residence
>as the child???  

Well, when it comes time to buy clothes, the clothes 'allowance' goes entirely
toward clothes for the kids.  Sure there would be 'common' stuff.  Perhaps
'0%' was slightly low :-).

>completely separate meals????  How much time does a working woman have in
>a day that she should cook TWO completely separate meals - and label
>everything in the refrigerator, HIS and HERS???  And make sure that the
>household supplies for cleaning be labeled HIS and HERS.

Probably about as much time as the ex that has to hold two jobs to manage
the payments.  

>children can have shoes when they need them.  They work long hours AND pay 
>$60.00 PER CHILD/PER WEEK or MORE for child care so they CAN work....and 
>they make alot less than their ex-husbands.  

So do the ex's.  That is the other side of the coin that never seems to be 
talked about. 

>"deadbeats".  They are the ones who clean up after the children, and the 
>ex-husbands complain because the kids aren't hermetically sealed and 
>sparkling when the weekend visit rolls around..

And some of the ex's, who have indeed fallen on hard times and cannot (not 
will not) make the payments get called a 'deadbeat' not only by the CP, but
now also by the media; in fact, can be put in jail for it.

>as if any kid stays
>clean for more than 5 minutes!  

'Kids' and 'clean' NEVER go together :-).

>TV at night.  They do laundry, make lunches, clean bathrooms, and try to
>keep it together.  

As do the ex's, although keeping up with kids is a mite more work.  But
there are at least two sides to every coin; I know women who do NOT lift
a hand for the kids (the kids have to fend for themselves).  So, you may
know some women who are overworked but there are others that are not.

>And, I've also noticed that a great majority of the men who complain about
>the money so bitterly still manage to afford to re-marry and start a
>second family....
>and buy homes and have cars that run reliably.

Are divorced women not allowed to remarry (assuming they want to, of course)?

Perhaps the 'affordabilty' of getting remarried is because there are two
incomes involved (the new wife's, for instance).  And haven't some people
tried to get increased payments from their ex's based on that increased
income?

How long after the divorce do you see THIS happening (car, house, etc).
You make it sound like days.

>The bottom line is...when two people with children get a divorce the bills
>to run two households are HIGHER..

The only one running 2 households is the one paying child support.  There is
a ONE way flow of money.

>Perhaps you should consider how expensive it is to support a child BEFORE
>you start a family....and perhaps you should focus on making it easy for
>your spouse to get a better education 

There are families were the education is easy.  However, how can you motivate
someone to actually GET that education?  I am NOT reffering to ALL CP.
As to making it easier, I think work could be done in the public assistance
programs so that getting that education does NOT cut back on the assistance
that some people need during that time.

>That would be a good way to deal with these problems before they come up.

The best solution to a problem is to avoid the problem in the first place.  
I wish more people did actually take better care in that area, but as you can 
see they do not....

    
    
    > David, your insults are uncalled for
    
      Unless I read an innapropriate attitude into your remarks about
    " Slanted", I doubt that it was uncalled for. 
    
    > You do what seems right to you
     
       I always do.
    
    > If sneering at other parents is your style
     
       I don't sneer DougO. I growl, snarl,nip, tuck,fish,bite, chew,
    but never sneer. The remark, as you well know, was not against parents,
    but rather as a reaction to your  remark about " Slanted". Nice try 
    tho' buddy :-)
    
    > I feel for your child.
    
     I will certainly tell my son this weekend that " Uncle DougO" cares.I
    am certain he will sleep so much better..
    
  David

    I have a suggestion, if women find it so hard being a single parent let
    the fathers have custody. Then they can pay CS. 

    I have an observation: The undertone I am getting is some women believe
    that if they have a child the father is obligated to THEM ( meaning the
    woman ) for the rest of his life WRONG! The father is only responsible
    to his offspring. CS should go to the kids not the EX. MEN OWE WOMEN
    NOTHING AFTER A DIVORCE.

    DougO: You've been eating the candy for three years, BUY IT. 


                             IMHO of course
    				Wayne

    I wrote .33 and I really DON'T APPRECIATE LATER REPLIES IMPLYING THAT
    MY FATHER IS A DRUG ADDICT AND CAN'T RESPONSIBLY MANAGE HIS MONEY
    WELL!!!
    
    Maybe I should have added that he has always had a PERFECT credit
    rating.  In my opinion he is very good at managing money...his only
    problem with money while he was paying child support is that HE NEVER
    HAD ANY MONEY TO MANAGE!!!
    
    NOW that he's NOT paying child support (he legally stopped paying when
    I turned 18) he's doing QUITE well.  He has a new house, a fairly new,
    very reliable car and he's planning to marry again soon.
    
    I really do think that he got scr__ed by the courts and ended up paying
    WAY too much child support...and that's from the person who most
    directly benefitted from that support!
    
    

    
    
     I to was offended by the suggestion that DougO made.. Such arrogance
    it takes to draw those kinds of conclusions.. Please accept me
    apologies for his insenstivity..
    
    
    David

    
    Another point about the "equality" of the sexes.  Statistically,
    a bigger percentate of women fail to pay child support than men.
    One big reason for this is that it's much more socially acceptable
    for women to be "housewives" and therefore remain unemployed, and
    therefore have no income to be garnished or ordered to pay child
    support on.  If a man tried to do that, there is a high liklihood
    of him doing some jail time.  Talk about opposite ends of the
    stick.
    
    My ex's current husband started a buisness after they were married.
    She tried to claim that she was unemployed and all the income was
    his.  However, if they got a divorce, then I would bet dollars to
    donut-holes that she'd want her half of the community property.
    I filed papers as such.  Talk about some squeeling and moaning.
    The buisness immediatly went "bankrupt".  So the court never
    ruled on my claim.  Would have been interesting.
    
    Wayne:  I agree.  If it's so hard for the mother to take care
    of the child, then why is it next to impossible for the father
    to get custody.
    
    fred();

    re .53
    I agree that the issue of marriage as an institution is tangential to
    this discussion, perhaps even orthogonal

    
    
     Orthogonal: Pertaining to or composed of right angles..Your tuition
    bonus for the day,..
    
    
    
    David

    Orthogonal also means perpendicular to. It has been used in the context
    of "unrelated to" by graduates of MIT -and others- for more than 20 years.
    It is an expression that has been used to mean something quite similar
    to "unrelated to" for all of the 20 years I have been at DEC. Using it
    in the context of "even less related than tangential" is eminently good
    english (or in the very LEAST good dec argot)

    
    
      Monsieur Nichols,
    
      Who are you talking @ ?
    
    
    David

       Obviously this is a VERY emotional issue.   I have my own stories
       but rather than give my ancedotes I would just like to say that
       Child Support seems to be based on what the NCP can pay and not what
       the child may need.  In many states it is computed this way:

       Custodial Parent income:		$xx,xxx.xx	(eg)	$23,000
       Non Custodial Parent income:	$yy,yyy.yy		$27,000
       total				$zz,zzz.zz		$50,000

       Total yearly for child		$aa,aaa.aa		$10,000

       NCP pays ~$6,000 per year or ~$500 per month
       In this case the NCP would end up with ~$950 per month to live on
       after taxes and commonly has to pay for health care of the child
       which could easily subtract another ~$150 - $200 per month.

       (Note:  In some states x, y and z are figured with living expenses
       factored in.)

       Average child needs are figured based on the income of the parents
       (ie based on 1/2 zz,zzz.zz)  Then the NCP will pay 1/2 of that
       figure.

       The problem comes in when you factor in "The FIB" factor.  The FIB
       factor kicks in when either the NCP or the CP lie about their income
       thus skewing the above formula.  The system investigates only when
       they feel like it.  In the above case if the CP declared 0 income
       the NCPs annual Child Support would go up to ~ $800 per month. 
       (They rarely ask to NCP to pay 100% or $834 per month)

       This is why you will find all kinds of stories where the Custodial
       Parent is making $10,000 per month and using Child Support money to
       have a maid while the Non-Custodial Parent is working two jobs and
       renting a run down trailer home with no heat.  And vice-versa.  The
       person working two jobs and getting shafted doesn't have the
       financial where-with-all to hire a Private Investigator and Lawyer
       to gather enough evidence that the Court cannot ignore.

       Little wonder why this is such an emotional issue.  Almost everyone
       will know someone who got shafted on one side of this issue or the
       other.

       Patrick
       
       
       

>
>       Little wonder why this is such an emotional issue.  Almost everyone
>       will know someone who got shafted on one side of this issue or the
>       other.

yeah.  and the ones I know are all under 18 years of age.  The real
victims of the battles, resentments, etc. are the children.  they
KNOW when dad thinks mom is a deadbeat or vice versa...they know when
the adults in the family fail miserably at being adult enough to take
care of them without the wars and tension...and they pay for it.

>>        <<< Note 819.66 by FORTSC::WILDE "why am I not yet a dragon?" >>>
                          -< the kids pay the price >-

>>>
>>>       Little wonder why this is such an emotional issue.  Almost everyone
>>>       will know someone who got shafted on one side of this issue or the
>>>       other.

>>yeah.  and the ones I know are all under 18 years of age.  The real
>>victims of the battles, resentments, etc. are the children.  they
>>KNOW when dad thinks mom is a deadbeat or vice versa...they know when
>>the adults in the family fail miserably at being adult enough to take
>>care of them without the wars and tension...and they pay for it.

       Absolutely!  My children thought that the reason that their mother
       and I got divorced in the first place was because of them!  Boy, did
       that hurt!  I agree 1000% that parents should put their children's
       well being ahead of everything else but ESPECIALLY THEIR OWN EGOs.
       And I think that's where most of the conflict comes into play.  "You
       left me for someone (younger, better looking, richer, shorter etc)
       and now you're gonna feel all the hurt and humiliation and pain I
       felt plus more.  I'll show you."  When the emotional battles begin
       the children are the first casulties.

       Patrick

    I've mentioned it elsewhere in another file but I thought I'd mention
    it here too. So far ....sifting through all the replies...we all
    basically agree that there are horror stories regarding both the CP and
    the NCP. We also know cases where 'things' have worked out well for all
    concerned. Since the intial note was 'do fathers have rights'...the
    answer is a simple one ...Yes. (and of course mothers have 'rights'
    too). So what happened when it worked out for the best for all.
    1. Open visitation rights....with the child's needs foremost. This
       works with a little common courtesy in regards to the
       needs/schedules of all.For example...if the father always takes the
       child on weekends but has ..say a business trip one weekend...then
       the mother can certainly manage the child that weekend. (we are 
       assuming that the father has notified the mother ahead of time and 
       not at the last minute.) If this type of arrangement has been in
       existance from the start and an emergency does occur whereby the
       father couldn't give advance notice then the mother can certainly
       show understanding. This teaches the children that despite our
       differences we can work to a common accord.
       The second part is the child's needs. If the child has a sports game
       or school event,etc. and this is the same time that they spend with
       the NCP then the NCP can either attend such event or make other
       arrangement with the child. Also see/talk to the child on other days
       besides the contracted ones. (a phone call in advance...again
       politeness) 
    2. One lawyer. His/her interests are the child's. Everything else is
       secondary. Two lawyers ...you're in conflict of interest.
    3. Act like adults. You two have the failed marriage for whatever
       reason. Quit blaming each other...admit you both made mistakes...and
       get on with your life.
    
    None of the above is easy I'll grant you that...however I know of so
    many cases where this truly exists and works that I feel it is worth
    the effort. I think we would see less bitterness on both sides and more
    cooperation toward the child.
    The child is the winner here.  
    3. Sell all communal(sp) property. Divide the profit equally. Perhaps
       a bit extreme...but then you all make fresh starts. 
       CP parent either. 

Re: .68

I believe I am the person Suzanne referred to earlier who has worked out
an evenhanded shared custody agreement, one which has worked fairly well for
six years now.  But I would be the first to admit that my sort of arrangement
isn't always possible, even with the best of intentions by the parents, and
it is certainly more difficult than the traditional arrangements, though the
effort has been worth it for me, and I believe for my son as well as his mother.

However, I want to comment about your suggestion of one lawyer versus two.
It is not guaranteed that two lawyers means problems; it certainly didn't
in my case.  But more important, many judges will reject a divorce agreement
where the parties shared a single lawyer, as they consider it possible or even
likely that one of the two isn't being adequately represented.  It's probably
less of a problem in simple cases where children aren't involved, financial
resources are about equal and the settlement appears to be fair.  If financial
resources are unequal, most judges will likely insist that each party have 
their own lawyer.

I agree with Suzanne's basic premise that the sorry state of custody rulings
and divorce settlements is a direct result of the unequal status of men and
women in our society.  Unfortunately, the politicians jump for the "easy fix"
of "Deadbeat Dads" lists and persuing collection of child support awards; 
largely because the state subsidizes so many CPs through Welfare and because
NCPs are an easy target.  I have yet to see a single politician, when advocating
going after delinquent NCPs, offering to take on the problem of visitation
rights violations at the same time - that's not their problem.  Sadly, it is
the problem of the one party who really matters, the child.

				Steve

    Thank you for all replies.  Some were helpful, some not so - thanks
    anyway.
    
    My concern is that he is going to go into court without a lawyer for
    this upcoming "support" issue.  Is he going to be taken to the cleaners
    without one.  The date is coming up soon, and he hasn't the money to
    engage a lawyer. 
    
    sounds like he's 'damned if he does and damned if he doesn't'.

    
    re .70
    
    The thing that may hurt him is getting all the papers filed right.
    He can call the clerk of the court and ask them what papers have
    to be filed when.  He can't ask for advice about the law (ie. 
    "waht are the exemptions") but he can ask about _procedure_ (ie
    what and how to file the papers).  This usually involves filing a 
    current "financial report" with supporting evidence like tax returns 
    and pay stubs. Then the court is going to take that information and 
    apply it to the "formula".  Then stick it to him accordingly.  If the 
    "formula" says that he should be paying $xxx more than he is, then 
    he's going to get stuck, and a lawyer is probably not going to  help much.  
    
    The only place a lawyer may be able to help is if they are trying 
    to include things like his spouse's income into the formula or what, 
    if any, are the exemptions.  He may be able to buy a couple hours 
    worth of advice from an attorney without paying the shark big $$$ to 
    go into court with him.
    
    It may be profitable to him to learn how to file these papers, etc.
    I know a lot of men who have run up some big "child support" bills
    after they were laid off or injured and couldn't work because they 
    couldn't afford a lawyer and just left the meter running rather than 
    file for a reduction.  The courts usually don't care if you were 
    unable to pay.  Just care that there was an order for you to pay $$$$ 
    and you didn't ask for a reduction.  This is where a lot of the 
    so-called "deadbeat-dads" come from.  Something happens and they get 
    way behind and don't feel like they'll ever be able to catch up 
    anyway so.....
    
    fred();
    

    The court will honor an agreement between the parties. Has a full faith
    effort been made to sit down and work out an agreement? Has mediation
    been tried? The only way I know to create some fairness is to get face
    to face and make an attempt to be "humane" about support. A freind
    who'd been in and out of court and around the horn with his x looked me
    in the eye and said "You've got to learn to deal with her because she
    has no incentive to deal with you". You gotta try!!! There's too much
    at stake not to. If not then you kiss 25-35% of your gross goddbyr for
    a looonnnggg time!
    
    				dan d
    
    

    re .57-
    
    Do yourself a favor; look up 'anecdotal'.  Then calm down.  I was 
    not saying that your father had those problems.  I said yours was 
    one story, here is another.  Similar circumstances, vastly different
    factors involved.  One story is as illustrative as another.  Don't
    take it personally.
    
    DougO

    The transition was a bit weak DougO, but I guess it was as you
    described.

    
    
    -1
    
      :-)
    
    
    David

    My 5 year old son asked the other day 'Dad, are strangers ALWAYS men!?"
    The question staggered me.... because it illustrated Societies
    assumption (which came across to my son so clearly) that men "always"
    are the sex criminals.
    
    Jeff

    No, but the vast majority of sex criminals who prey on children are.

    the .76, I think the answer is, "Not *always* but most of the time,
    strangers are men."
    
    When I'm walking to my car, in the Alewife parking lot or some similar
    place, at night, I only feel scared when I see strange men in the
    parking lot.  I don't feel afraid when I see women.  Women don't
    usually mug, murder and rape strangers.  Most men don't either, but it
    seems that the people who do do these things are usually men.
    
    Lorna
    

    FWIW, I could basically quote Lorna.  When in a place like Alewife, I'm
    far more conscious of the potential for danger from men than from women
    I see.  It bothers me that this is so, but then I'm more nervous around
    leather-jacketed, kerchiefed bikers than I am around cross-country
    skiers.  It's all in the picture I have of these people as groups:
    statistically and historically, the bikers are more apt to be trouble
    than the skiers - so it is with strange men and strange women in dark
    places.
    
    -dick

Jeff, do you have a problem with society's asumption or with the
people who molest children?  Looks from your note like you object
to the former, while I tend to think the latter is the problem area.

DougO

    re:.76
    
    All men are potential rapists.
    
    Andrea Dworkin told me so.

    I have a problem in Societies assumption that because I am a man I am
    a risk to other people.... a risk to other adults and to children.
    Statistically, because I am a man I suppose thats true... but as an
    individual I am no danger and I resent the implication.
    
    Men, on the whole may present a higher risk to Society than women as
    far as crime goes.  I can't deny the statistics.  And I agree that
    usually it is men who prey on children.  
    
    "A stranger is usually a man".  I thought a stranger was someone one
    didn't know.  That could be a woman too, unless the word stranger means
    a man who is potentially a criminal.  Of course my latter definition is
    the way the word stranger is actually used.
    
    When I warned my five year old about 'strangers' I found myself in a
    real definition trap because as I was trying to explain to him that
    MOST strangers are good people I realized that he was HEARING that
    ALL STRANGERS ARE BAD PEOPLE.  Of course most strangers are good people
    assuming we use the word stranger in the way it is defined in the
    dictionary.  Then, days later when out of the blue he said: "Dad are
    ALL strangers men" I realized that I was unable to precisely tell him
    what I ment by strangers.  Because its ok to talk to strangers when with
    Mom, or Dad, but not when he is alone.  I also realized that I and he
    had fallen into the statistically correct but literally not correct
    trap that strange men are all he had to watch out for.
    
    Its a damm shame that we (Society) even have to discuss this sickening
    topic.
    
    Jeff

    
    re Lorna and Dick
    
    I am not responsible for your paranoia.  I think you've gotten your cause 
    and effect reversed.  Your statements expose your prejudice.
    I resent your implications.
    
    Actually in such a situation, I would be much more likely to be
    one to come to your aid if such an attack occurred rather than 
    I would being the attacker.  I think that in the not too distant
    past that the assumption would have been more to the affect that
    men were the protectors.  Looks like the constant hammering by
    the hate groups is starting to take its toll.
    
    And yes, I have been in the Alewife parking lot and similar places
    late.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .83
    
    >Looks like the constant hammering by
    >the hate groups is starting to take its toll.
    
    	You mean the KKK and Aryan Nation are trying to convince us
    	to be afraid of strange men (who aren't black, gay or Jewish)?
    
    	When did the hate groups start this?
    
    /Greg
    

    RE: .83  Fred
    
    > I think that in the not too distant past that the assumption would 
    > have been more to the affect that men were the protectors.
    
    Back when men were more often regarded as "the protectors," who were
    the *attackers* (from whom men were busy protecting others?)
    
    Weren't the attackers also (mostly) men?  If there were no such
    attackers, why would men have been regarded (or needed) as "protectors"
    in the first place?

    re .83, exactly, Fred, the attackers were men, too.  How am I supposed
    to tell when I'm alone in Alewife at night who the attackers are and
    who the offenders are?  People don't wear signs stating which they're
    most likely to be.
    
    Lorna
    
    ps - Do you wear a sign - Hi, I'm Fred, and I'm a Defender - ?
    

    Fred();
    
    You make no sense.  How can I have gotten cause and effect reversed? 
    To do that would require that my concern for the greater statistical
    danger associated with strange men be the actual cause of that greater
    danger.  If we were dealing with wolves, which can smell fear, then
    maybe I would consider your point as having some validity.
    
    And I am not paranoid.  I do not believe that "they," whoever "they"
    are, are out to get me.  I am simply not foolish enough to tempt the
    devil willingly.  You, on the other hand, I take it, would have no
    qualms about a nighttime stroll through Harlem or the Bronx...?
    
    -dick

    re .87
    
    >You make no sense.  How can I have gotten cause and effect reverse
     
    You reverse cause and effect when you start with the "I am afraid,
    therefore you are bad" rather than "I know you to be bad, therefore
    I should be afraid".
    
    re: hate groups.
    
    Although they started out with some admirable goals, (in my not so
    humble openion) NOW has degenerated into something little better
    than the KKK.
    
    fred();

    > You reverse cause and effect when you start with the "I am afraid,
    > therefore you are bad"
    
    But that isn't what he said.  He said "I am afraid because you
    *may* be bad."   Expressing a feeling doesn't "make" someone
    bad.
    
    > Although they started out with some admirable goals, (in my not so
    > humble openion) NOW has degenerated into something little better
    > than the KKK.
    
    Absurd.  NOW does not preach hatred of anyone.
    
    /Greg

.89>    Absurd.  NOW does not preach hatred of anyone.
    
    NOW doesn't hate the patriarchy?

    Re: .90
    
    > .89>    Absurd.  Now does not preach hatred of anyone.
    >
    > Now doesn't hate the patriarchy?
    
    NOW does not hate *men*.  NOW hates the behavior of some men in having
    created, and in supporting, the patriarchy.  Is this distinction too
    subtle for your nimble wits?
    
    -dick

    re .91
    
    
    >NOW does not hate *men*.  
    
    Sure could'a fooled me.  NOW has come to be known of one
    as the most radical of the "feminist" groups.
    
    >NOW hates the behavior of some men in having
    >created, and in supporting, the patriarchy.  
    
    However, when I look at the "solutions" advocated by this group,
    they seem to be awfully one sided.  Ie aimed at the supremicy
    of of women rather than true "equality".
    
    >Is this distinction too
    >subtle for your nimble wits?
    
    Rather than being accused as a "whiner" for complaining about
    personal attacks, I'll just ignore this.
    
    fred();

    re .92, do you think the female members of NOW hate the male members of
    NOW?
    
    NOW is not aimed at female supremacy.  It is aimed at equality.  The
    problem is that the concept of equality between men and women is so
    alien to many men, that they see it as an attempt at female supremacy,
    much as some white southerners saw the Civil Rights movement as an
    attempt at black supremacy.
    
    Lorna
    

    Given NOW's history it is obvious that what they mean by equality and
    what those of use who use the word in its conventional sense mean are
    two very different things.  NOW's definition means that some are to be
    more equal than others.  I leave you to guess who.

    Saw a coffie cup in a gift store. Said 'Vote for Women'. Wounder if
    this was a splinter group of NOW or was this money going directly to
    the cause? 

    re .95, given the number of men who hold political office in the US, I
    can't believe you were actually *upset* by a mug that said "Vote for
    Women."  Most political offices in the US are held by men.  What's
    wrong with women voting for other women so the numbers can be evened up
    a little?
    
    Lorna
    

>    can't believe you were actually *upset* by a mug that said "Vote for
>    Women."  Most political offices in the US are held by men.  What's
>    wrong with women voting for other women so the numbers can be evened up
>    a little?

Because the voting is then done specifically on gender.  For men, that would be
considered sexist.  True, people can vote for whomever they want to.  I think
it rather short sighted to vote based on gender and not on qualifications (in
my opinion).

    re .97, considering the fact that women couldn't even *vote* in this
    country until *1920*, I don't think any man has a right to cry sexism
    over a coffee mug!
    
    Lorna
    

>
>    re .97, considering the fact that women couldn't even *vote* in this
>    country until *1920*, I don't think any man has a right to cry sexism
>    over a coffee mug!

How about the IDEA that the coffee mug represents?  Kind of shoots down the
standard version of 'equality' doesn't it?  "Do as I say, not as I do|?

Hmmm... 1992 - 1920 = 70+ years.  So, how long before that accusation gets a
rest?  After all, how many people are still alive that could have been 
responsible for women NOT having the vote?  Why should people (male, female)
who had nothing to do with it suffer out of 'retribution'?

    re last one, if you are telling me that you are "suffering" because of
    a slogan written on a coffee mug, that somebody else saw, I think you
    need some help.
    
    The idea behind the coffee mug is to suggest to people that they
    consider voting for female candidates.  Many people are so used to
    having men being the ones in power, that it wouldn't even occur to them
    to vote for a woman.  The mug is just saying, consider the
    qualifications of women, too.  Don't just automatically vote for a man.
    
    And, while it's true that while it's been many years since women got
    the vote, there is another old saying, "those who forget the past are
    doomed to repeat it."  (Those (women) who forget how men have
    subjugated them in the past, could be doomed to repeat it someday.)
    
    Lorna
    

    re lornal last few
    
    This is why I have some real questions about the credibility of
    the so-called "equal rights" groups.  Especially NOW.  IMHO
    your arguments are just helping to expose the hypocrisy, not
    explain it.
    
    fred();

    The gentlemen who are complaining so vigorously about NOW would appear
    to have no clue whatsoever about the organizations goals and
    espoused views. 
    
    			Steve (a NOW member)

> Because the voting is then done specifically on gender.  For men, that would be
> considered sexist.  True, people can vote for whomever they want to.  I think
> it rather short sighted to vote based on gender and not on qualifications (in
> my opinion).

Right, everybody just 'close your eyes' with regard to gender of the 
candidates, and everything'll work out just fine, eh?

That's why the Senate gender ratio is 98 men to 2 women.  That's how
that body came to be so out of touch with harassment problems in this
country that the Judiciary committee embarrassed themselves on national
television last November.  And that's why some of us are going to vote
for women whenever we get the chance; because other strategies are taking
too long to yield proportional representation.  *I* think the Senate as a
whole will be a far more effective legislating body if there are many more
women in there; they'll be representative of the US population in a way
that 98:2 simply cannot be.  You slice your 'qualifications' any way you
want to, I'll slice mine this way.  And I'll speak out for it, too.  When
we get to 55:45 or 50:50 THEN you can call gender-based voting 'short-
sighted', and maybe get a discussion.  But for now, your opinion is a
call for maintenance of the 98:2 status quo, which I for one won't accept
any longer, and I'll vote accordingly.

DougO

I think, if you really sit back and think it through, you could find many
ways in which an equal "playing field" for men and women would benefit
men just as much, and sometimes more, than women.  Men have had the
"job" of living up to some pretty undoable standards for a long, long time.
It makes it difficult for them to relate to one another honestly, hurts their
ability to relate to their loved ones in an honest manner, and leaves them
emotionally isolated.  There has been a price to pay for being the "macho
man in control of the whole damned thing"...and it would benefit us all
if we could stop pointing at things and saying, "I want ALL OF THAT when
things get equal", and begin to work together to establish overall equality.
For instance, it is ridiculous to demand that men not have to pay so much child
support as long as women make %0.62 for every $1.00 that a man makes...it
only is possible to consider the child support issue equally when both 
parents have equal purchasing power - and equal borrowing power at the bank.
Then you can begin to reduce the amount of money a man must contribute and
still be assured that the children will not suffer.  So, begin to make it
clear that you want women to be paid an equal salary for equal, or EQUIVALENT,
work....and make your bank understand that discrimination against women
in their loan policies will lose them customers.  Then, when the monetary 
playing field is more equal, you can fight for more equal balance in child
support payments.  While you are at it, you can fight for a father's right
to be a custodial parent and not suffer on the job discrimination...yes, you
guys take it in the shorts when you are the one that has to stay home because
the baby sitter didn't show up or is sick...you are the ones that get nailed
in performance reviews because you cannot work late at the last minute or
take a trip out of town to support a project.  Quite frankly, I've seen
men have their jobs threatened while trying to be the custodial parent of
small children...and they certainly don't get good job reviews or raises.
Is that fair?  You bet it isn't...and it will only change if we ALL demand
that it does.  And, hasn't it occurred to you that if the judge decides
that the father should become the custodial parent, the total family income
available to support the children will, in 90% of the cases, be severely
reduced if the man has to stop working in order to take care of special
child care needs.  You see, the "safe" answer for society is to make the
woman the custodial parent - then, the man can continue working and paying
the bills and, if needed, the woman can stay at home with the kids AT A LOWER
COST TO THE STATE which may have to make up the difference in value.  I don't
know that any child custody issues are settled on this data, but I'm
willing to bet that there is a "policy" somewhere that considers it.  How
to make it go away?  Simple.  Make sure that women have equal opportunity for
education and work -  access to money in the marketplace.  Then you can
be assured that these considerations won't make a difference.

And, it isn't enough, in many cases, to simply say, "okay, from NOW ON, you
get equality"...when the equality hasn't been there, then you have the problem
of making up the gap.  Of course, you can say that isn't your problem...but,
then things stay the way they are.  Unless we find ways to level the 
economic playing field, FIRST, the other issues that hurt YOU MEN aren't
going to be settled.  So, instead of standing on the sidelines bleating that
you don't want to LOSE, you have to risk getting involved and make sure that
we all WIN.

    re .103
    
    Women have 50% of the vote.  Recently in the Colorado there was
    a woman (Jose Heateh) running for the Senate.  She ran on mostly
    an "I'm a Woman" platform and only got just over 10% of the
    *Democratic* vote.  Sorry, but women are going to have more 
    going for them than just the fact that their a woman before
    I will vote for them.  
    
    There are some women that I'd vote for, however.
    
    fred();

    re .104
    
    I have no problem with "an equal playing field".  It's NOW's idea
    of "equal" that I have a problem with.
    
    fred();

    fred(), just what is NOW's idea of "equal"?
    
    Karen

    re .107
    
>    fred(), just what is NOW's idea of "equal"?
    
    --If it benefets me to be "equal" then you should help me become
    equal.  If it benefits *you* to be equal, then kiss-off.
    
    --To benefit someone because they are a male is sexist, but
    to benefit someone because they are a female is just "leveling
    the field".
    
    fred();

    Re: .107
    
    I don't know why you're asking Fred.  He obviously isn't a NOW member
    and has to resort to inventing things based on his own fears.
    
    				Steve

    re steve
    
    Your credibility as a moderator is slipping of you of all people
    are going to resort to personal attacks.  I am not "inventing"
    I am giving my view based on what I know.  As Will Rogers once
    said, "All I know is what I read in the news papers".  As 
    another man once said "you'll know them by their actions".
    
    Suppose you give us *your* view of what NOW's idea of equality
    is.

>
>    re last one, if you are telling me that you are "suffering" because of
>    a slogan written on a coffee mug, that somebody else saw, I think you
>    need some help.

Nice personal attack.  I assume you will have the decency of rescinding this
comment.  
    
>    The idea behind the coffee mug is to suggest to people that they
>    consider voting for female candidates.  Many people are so used to
>    having men being the ones in power, that it wouldn't even occur to them
>    to vote for a woman.  The mug is just saying, consider the
>    qualifications of women, too.  

Sorry, it says (to me) 'vote for women' because they are women and says 
nothing about their qualifications.  Why not vote for qualified people, 
regardless of gender?  If the qualified people voted in are all males, fine; 
if they are all female, fine; if it is any sort of mix, fine.  The need is 
for QUALIFIED people, not gender quotas.  

>Don't just automatically vote for a man.

Just automatically vote for a woman.  Hmmm....
    
>    And, while it's true that while it's been many years since women got
>    the vote, there is another old saying, "those who forget the past are
>    doomed to repeat it."  

>(Those (women) who forget how men have
>    subjugated them in the past, could be doomed to repeat it someday.)
>

Or they could be taught to hate men based on that 'history'.

>
>Right, everybody just 'close your eyes' with regard to gender of the 
>candidates, and everything'll work out just fine, eh?

Well, it might reduce the double standard a bit, wouldn't you agree?

>That's why the Senate gender ratio is 98 men to 2 women.  

Could be.  Do you have any statistics etc that indicates they were elected on
gender (or not elected on gender?)  How about the ability to solve (or create)
problems based on gender?  Heaven forbid that people look at some things in a
gender blind fashion.

>That's how
>that body came to be so out of touch with harassment problems in this
>country that the Judiciary committee embarrassed themselves on national
>television last November.  

Ah yes, saying things like MS Hill has delusions and 'needs help'.  I was told
the same thing in .100. 

>And that's why some of us are going to vote
>for women whenever we get the chance; because other strategies are taking
>too long to yield proportional representation.  

Despite qualifications?  Or is gender a qualification now?

>*I* think the Senate as a
>whole will be a far more effective legislating body if there are many more
>women in there; they'll be representative of the US population in a way
>that 98:2 simply cannot be.  

They were voted in by that population; they are representative of that (but
not in the male/female ratio).  

>You slice your 'qualifications' any way you
>want to, I'll slice mine this way.  And I'll speak out for it, too.  

I do not see anyone trying to stop you.  I do see someone telling me that
I 'need help' because of my views.  

>When
>we get to 55:45 or 50:50 THEN you can call gender-based voting 'short-
>sighted', and maybe get a discussion.  

Some people don't believe the problem is the ratio but the lack of solutions
to problems (social, economic, etc).  Get qualified people in that can solve
the problems, regardless of their gender.

>But for now, your opinion is a
>call for maintenance of the 98:2 status quo, which I for one won't accept
>any longer, and I'll vote accordingly.

My opinion is NOT a call to maintain the status quo but to get qualified people
in office.  I am sorry if I do not believe the solution to current problems is 
an 'acceptable' gender ratio in power.  I would MUCH rather see people fixing
the real problems.  

    re:.96
    
    Well, Lorna, it's kinda sexist, doncha think, to vote for someone 
    just cuz they're the right sex...
    
    Or is this an exempt situation?  Hmmm?

    
    thats right, mike.
    
    

    
re: .108, .109

>>    fred(), just what is NOW's idea of "equal"?
>    
>    --If it benefets me to be "equal" then you should help me become
>    equal.  If it benefits *you* to be equal, then kiss-off.
>    
>    --To benefit someone because they are a male is sexist, but
>    to benefit someone because they are a female is just "leveling
>    the field".
    
    
    .109
    
>    I don't know why you're asking Fred.  He obviously isn't a NOW member
>    and has to resort to inventing things based on his own fears.
    
    
    Fred, Steve is allowed to note as a noter too.  If you can have your
    opinions, he can have his. 
    
    Try on the following thought:
    
    "Think about how what he said looks to you.
     Imagine that what you have been saying looks that way to him."
    
    When someone espouses information about something you believe in, and
    that information is *so* off base you can't believe it, your response
    is often negative to them.  Yes?
    
    Try thinking about what it would be like  if the approach and
    accomplishment of equality wound up benefitting everyone - but since
    things are unfair to begin with, it may *look* unfair as the balance
    shifts.
    
    -Jody
    
 

    re .115
    
    >"Think about how what he said looks to you.
>     Imagine that what you have been saying looks that way to him."
>    
>    When someone espouses information about something you believe in, and
>    that information is *so* off base you can't believe it, your response
>    is often negative to them.  Yes?
    
    Jody,  You got a lot of nerve pointing a finger at *me* about this one.
    This would probably be good advice for a *lot* of people in this
    file.
    
    Steve is welcome to point out how my view is incorrect and set the
    record straight (which nobody has done).  He is welcome to state
    his view of the situation. He does not have a right to attack me as 
    some no-nothing dumb-cluck (now who has been complaining about *that* 
    for decades).  Comming from the person who has been responsible for 
    setting these standards in this file (with mod hat on or not) is 
    paricularly disappointing.
    
    fred();

    Fred, I didn't say you knew nothing.  I just said it was obvious you
    were unfamiliar with NOW's positions.
    
    And I must admit I am getting a bit tired of certain people suggesting
    that, just because I happen to be a moderator, I'm not allowed to
    express my opinion when I feel like it.  I try very hard to separate
    my moderator actions from my personal opinions.
    
    I am locating a definitive statement of NOW's goals and will post
    it here when I get it.  I can say that NOW is not at all what I'd
    consider "radical" and does not seek to deprive men of any rights.
    
    				Steve

    re: NOW
    Public policy statements only create a perception of an organization.
    The underlying agenda can and most often is something quite different.
    NOW does a good job of creating a "gender neutral" image but its
    actions are something completely different. Subversion of mens rights
    is much more descriptive IMO.
    Anyone heard of "Emily's List". 
    

>    actions are something completely different. Subversion of mens rights
>    is much more descriptive IMO.
    
    Any reasons why you have that O?
    
    Ray

    
    re .117
    
    >Fred, I didn't say you knew nothing.  I just said it was obvious you
    >were unfamiliar with NOW's positions.
    
    Maybe I should have more accurately said that you said, 
    
    
>            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
>                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
>================================================================================
>Note 819.109             Don't FATHER's Have ANY Rights?              109 of 119
>QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent"       6 lines  27-AUG-1992 15:52
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Re: .107
>    
>    I don't know why you're asking Fred.  He obviously isn't a NOW member
>    and has to resort to inventing things based on his own fears.
>    
>    				Steve
    
    But saying that I am just "inventing" is IMO actualy worse.
    Knowing nothing may be one thing, but "inventing" implies that
    it is deliberate.
    
>    And I must admit I am getting a bit tired of certain people suggesting
>    that, just because I happen to be a moderator, I'm not allowed to
>    express my opinion when I feel like it.  I try very hard to separate
>    my moderator actions from my personal opinions.
    
    I guess it kind of goes with the territory.  Opinions yes, personal 
    attacks no.  
    
    fred();

Re: .118

What does EMILY's List have to do with anything?  All that group does is 
provide pro-choice female Democratic political candidates with campaign
contributions.  There is a similar group for Republicans.  I am not even
sure there is a connection with NOW.

I suspect that the fear of NOW is based on a belief that if women gain
rights, that men somehow have to lose them.  This makes no sense to me.


				Steve

    
    re steve.
    
    There was one of the WWII death camps here the found Russians 
    buried on top of Ukrainians who where in turn buried on
    top of Jews.  I don't remember the name of the place right 
    off hand.
    
    The Ukrainians had helped the Nazis round up the Jews, then
    the Russians had helped round up the Ukrainians, then...
    
    There is an old proverb--If you think that their out to get
    you, it may not be paranoia.  There is also a proverb--Those
    that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
    
    Now I'm not saying that I think NOW is out to exterminate
    men, but IMHO some of the "solutions" that I see advocated
    by this group smacks of Mccarthyism and would require the
    trashing of the Bill of Rights to implement.
    
    fred();
    

Re: .122

Care to name some?  I can't think of any offhand.

			Steve

    Re: .122
    
    Advocated by NOW as official policy?  Or promulgated as personal
    suggestions by individual members/subgroups of NOW members (or
    nonmenbers)?  Citatinos, Fred, with names and source references.
    
    -dick

    re .123, 124
    
    Apparently you haven't been reading _mn_ for a while, or you
    have the (mistaken) belief that the rest of us have just as
    bad a memory.
    
    fred();
    

        
    I caught the tale-end of a show on PBS yesterday (didn't catch
    the name) that had a "panel" of 4 or 5 _female_ "political analysts".
    They were discussing the political system and the possibility of
    third parties and brought up several third parties such as
    the Ross Perot (sp) candidacy and a potential NOW party.
    
    One of the women thought a NOW party was great and wanted to 
    know where to send her check, but the rest said that they
    thought that NOW was too far to the left of even most women
    in the U.S. to be a viable  third party.
    
    fred();

    
>    One of the women thought a NOW party was great and wanted to 
>    know where to send her check, but the rest said that they
>    thought that NOW was too far to the left of even most women
>    in the U.S. to be a viable  third party.
    
without knowing their political agendas, I have no base on which to
validate this statement.  I think the republican party platform,
which denies abortion even to save the life of the mother or in the
case of incest, is too far right - however, I know there are lots of
folks out there that do not value women's lives enough to find any
problem with this platform.  I am a supporter of the ERA - a simply
ammendment to make it constitutionally illegal to consider me a
second-class citizen or a piece of property - yet, many think that
it is too radical to declare women as equal citizens under the law.
They claim that to declare me an equal citizen would deny me my
"special privileges" ..... NOW is still supporting the ammendment - I
will support NOW because I don't want/need those "special privileges"..
NOW supports finding qualified candidates for political office and
getting them the funds they need to run - note, I said qualified...
yes, they should be women - after all, the rest of the world is
supporting male candidates - NOW is simply proposing to focus our
support to the qualified WOMAN candidates so that they have a
chance to win.  Hardly scandalous...Many men's focus groups and clubs
also support THEIR candidates for office - and nobody is hollering.

What do you find frightening about NOW - that they support more visability
for women in government?  We are over half the population, after all,
doesn't it make sense that we might have at least half the office-holders
out there as members of our sex?

>Note 819.127             Don't FATHER's Have ANY Rights?              127 of 127
>FORTSC::WILDE "why am I not yet a dragon?"           31 lines  31-AUG-1992 20:39
>                                 -< so what? >-
    
    
>Hardly scandalous...Many men's focus groups and clubs
>also support THEIR candidates for office - and nobody is hollering.

    
    I am cornfused; Could you name some 'men's focus' group?
    
    
    When I think of focus groups, the ones that come to mind easily are:
    
    NAACP, NOW, Jewish Defense League, ....
    
    Steve

    I dont' think the negative reaction to women running for political
    office stems from the candidate being a woman as much as comments to
    the effect that one will vote for the woman BECAUSE she's a woman.  
    Just because a candidate is a woman does not mean she is necessarily
    the most qualified-she may be or may not be.  I think the objection
    is based on an implication that some people would encourage to or 
    vote based on gender and not qualifications of the candidates. 
    Whatever men groups are supporting a male candidate are doing so
    because they beleive in their candidate's abilities.  I'm sure the
    women groups do the same thing, but there are women out there who 
    encourage voting for the woman candidate to even the score and it
    sometimes, IMO, comes across as having nothing to do with the person's
    ability to lead/hold office in a productive manner.

For what it's worth, I recently received a mailing from NH NOW listing 
fourteen candidates it was endorsing for election - seven were female, seven
were male.  I have seen NOW chapters, local and national, endorse male
candidates over female opponents when they thought the male candidate was
more supportive of their positions.  So at least NOW doesn't blindly
endorse candidates just because they are female.

This is an interesting election year, with far more women running for office
than ever before.  I've read reports suggesting that voters as a whole view
a female candidate as more of "a change from the status quo" than a male
candidate.  I have read of some male candidates expressing what would appear
to be "sour grapes" attitudes, one such suggesting that his female opponent
was going around saying "I have breasts, vote for me".

To me the most important point is for voters to FORGET their long-held belief
that women aren't "serious" political candidates and to judge them solely on
their competence and positions.

				Steve

re: question about mens focus groups

do the Jaycees exist back east?  I know they are a real power in New Mexico
where I grew up - they are exclusively male as far as I know....and there
are the shriners - a benevolent organization which actively supports
political candidates and activities.  Then you also have the Freemasons -
a group who support candidates of their choices...to just name a few.

FOR THE RECORD:  I find it interesting to claim that all those men out
there are supporting candidates just because of their qualifications - 
when it is clear to me that some of the bozos we've seen in Congress and
the Senate aren't qualified to work as doormen - but, they are the
candidate of the PARTY.  Fer Pete's sake, candidates have been chosen
because they belong to a party, or because they can bring in contributions,
or because someone thinks they are handsome enough to get the "woman's vote"
(one excuse that has given us Dan Quayle - don't you know), or because they
have the hands in someone's pocket.  I am really amazed that someone would
be upset that a woman candidate might get some votes because she is a
woman....oh my, what a scandal that is.  The simple fact that it is so
hard for women to be taken seriously indicates she has MOST LIKELY
done her homework better than any male candidates out there - given the
criteria so many must use to select a candidate - I mean, who among us
actually believes that Ron Reagan has any ACTUAL BRAINS - choosing on
gender isn't that bad.  Hell, I'm convinced most people chose Bush on
the fact that he stood NEAR Reagan for 8 years - they obviously weren't
listening to the man...
 

    re .131
    
    
>when it is clear to me that some of the bozos we've seen in Congress and
>the Senate aren't qualified to work as doormen - but, they are the
>candidate of the PARTY.  Fer Pete's sake, candidates have been chosen
>because they belong to a party, or because they can bring in contributions,
>or because someone thinks they are handsome enough to get the "woman's vote"
    
    Looks like it worked.  A *lot* of women must have voted for these
    "bozos" too.  
    
>(one excuse that has given us Dan Quayle - don't you know), or because they
>have the hands in someone's pocket.  I am really amazed that someone would
>be upset that a woman candidate might get some votes because she is a
>woman....oh my, what a scandal that is.  The simple fact that it is so
    
    Apparently you think that because someone else *may* be doing it,
    then that justifies you doing *openly* in reverse.  It is apparent
    to me that you are making an awful lot of accusations with precious 
    little evidence to support them and expecting us to accept them as 
    absolute truth.
    
    Given your obvious political convictions, I have to take your 
    statements with a grain of salt---or a whole shaker full.
    It's obvious (to me anyway) that you are doing in reverse what
    you are accusing "men" of doing.  It's difficult for me to 
    support that kind of hypocrisy.
    
    Your statements are a class A example of what I find most 
    disgusting in a lot of "minority" agendas.
    
    fred();

    fred()
    
    Just what do you suppose her agenda is?

    re 133
    
    Well for starters, it's obvious (to me anyway) that anything 
    that's male or Republican is automatically ogre material.  Also 
    she appears to try to out and out advocate and justify voting 
    for women just because they are women.  Something nearly every 
    other response to this note has already rejected and many have
    tried to deny is happening.  Then she comes along and proves
    my point for me.
    
    fred();

    
>    Well for starters, it's obvious (to me anyway) that anything 
>    that's male or Republican is automatically ogre material.  Also 
>    she appears to try to out and out advocate and justify voting 
>    for women just because they are women.  Something nearly every 
>    other response to this note has already rejected and many have
>    tried to deny is happening.  Then she comes along and proves
>    my point for me.
    
fred,

you know nothing of MY agenda nor do you know anything about NOW's agenda.
I simply posed the question of why you found it so horrifying when women
say they vote for gender when people generally choose candidates for
just as silly reasons...however, you attitude is so hostile and
presents such a shutdown to any real dialogue, I do not intend to attempt
it with you.  your attitude is one reason that so many women are simply
turning away from discussions with men and going their own way - without
TRYING to make themselves understood anymore.  You are LOOKING for hooks
on which you can hang your hostility - you are bound to find it.

FWIW, I actually do know sane republicans...some of them are women...and,
due to the meager offerings by their party, they are regretfully voting
for the democratic ticket this time around....I don't quite know what
I will do this time..other than the fact that I will not support a party
that has a platform that dictates that a woman should die rather than
have an abortion to save her life.  As a woman, I will not support a
party that finds my life so expendable.  Whatever I do, I will assure
you, I take my vote seriously and will choose what I feel is best for
the country.

I just won't ask your permission first....

    
    re .135
    
    I would suggest that you are the one looking for hooks and excuses.
    Both Bush and Quale have stated that their view of abortion is
    "In all cases _except_ rape, incest, and where the life of he
    mother is threatened".  Everyone knows that the party platform
    has little or nothing to do with the view of the candidate.
    I could say that I will not vote for a party that will not allow
    a free and open debate of the issues and be more accurate than
    your statement is.  I believe you are either deliberatley trying to 
    distort the facts or you haven't gotten far enough past your own 
    biggotry to take an honest look at the facts.
    
    fred();
    
    ps. I doubt that anybody will ask my permission on who to vote
    for.

    
>    I would suggest that you are the one looking for hooks and excuses.
>    Both Bush and Quale have stated that their view of abortion is
>    "In all cases _except_ rape, incest, and where the life of he
>    mother is threatened".  Everyone knows that the party platform
>    has little or nothing to do with the view of the candidate.
>    I could say that I will not vote for a party that will not allow
>    a free and open debate of the issues and be more accurate than
>    your statement is.  I believe you are either deliberatley trying to 
>    distort the facts or you haven't gotten far enough past your own 
>    biggotry to take an honest look at the facts.
    
fred,

the party platform is what the candidates are standing on...if they
do not support it, why do they run as THAT party's candidates?  I will
not support any party that finds a woman's life so easily discarded.
Period.  If the republicans want a different platform, let them declare
a different platform.  I take it quite seriously when a politcal
party in this country states that their policy is to let the woman
DIE rather than allow an abortion.  I am a woman and I take this
kind of attitude personally.  I am not alone in this.  The republicans
cannot have it both ways.  They must make their stand on the issue
of the value of a woman's life KNOWN or they will lose the votes of
women like me.  I don't think it is trivial, nor do I buy the argument
that women should ignore the public platform of the party and vote
for the party's candidates..if a candidate is a republican, he/she
stands on THAT party's platform.  I know Bush and Quayle would seem
to prefer to only stand on the platform of the party when talking to
the religeous right, but the platform stands the same all the time
and as they are republicans, they wear that sucker like a custom-tailored
suit.  Perhaps, they should have considered the long-term effect of
such a policy prior to accepting the platform as their launching pad.

>================================================================================
>Note 819.131             Don't FATHER's Have ANY Rights?              131 of 137
>FORTSC::WILDE "why am I not yet a dragon?"           27 lines   1-SEP-1992 12:38
>                        -< mens groups and candidates >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>re: question about mens focus groups

>do the Jaycees exist back east?  I know they are a real power in New Mexico
>where I grew up - they are exclusively male as far as I know....and there
>are the shriners - a benevolent organization which actively supports
>political candidates and activities.  Then you also have the Freemasons -
>a group who support candidates of their choices...to just name a few.
>
    
    I don't ever remember any of them ENDORSING any candidate ever in any
    election. Pointers please...?
    
    
    Steve

    
    
    re -1
    
    As a woman I definitely will not vote for any candidate regardless
    of sex or party that does not support a woman's right to choose.
    I doubt that men can truly understand how deeply this affects
    a women as it is not mens freedom that is at risk.  It far
    too serious an issue to ignore.  However, prochoice is not
    the only reason I would vote for a person.  It is a major
    factor in the equation.
    
    >everyone knows that the party platform has little or nothing
    to do with the view of the candidate.
    ????  if by that you mean that it is ok for them to change their
    mind and not have the same views as the party platform after
    they are elected then I agree with your statement.  However,
    how could they be chosen by their party for election if they
    do not meet the party views?  
    
    Michele

    re .139
    
>    ????  if by that you mean that it is ok for them to change their
>    mind and not have the same views as the party platform after
>    they are elected then I agree with your statement.  However,
>    how could they be chosen by their party for election if they
>    do not meet the party views?  
    
    The platform committee was heavily weighted in favor of the 
    more radical elements of the party.  As was the platform 
    committee of the Democratic convention.  The party will 
    choose who most closely fits their views.  I haven't seen
    Clinton bragging much about the Democratic platform either. 
    But at least the voices of decent were allowed to be heard
    in the Republican convention.  This new Liberal McCarthyism 
    bothers me personally a lot more than the abortion issue.
    
    Neither of the candidates supports *every* issue that I believe
    in.  So what do I do,  stay home and let someone else determine
    my future.  I have to take into account a lot more than just
    one issue.  I still remember Jimmy the Teeth and 20%+ interest,
    15%+ inflation, and (where I was) 21% unemployment.  I see
    more and more economists attributing the current problems with
    the economy to the 1990 tax hike ( and no, I do not credit the
    tax hike solely to Bush ).  (Can you say TFSO)?  I don't see Congress 
    in any hurry to fix the economy, either.  The worse things are now, 
    the better for Clinton.  Kind of strange when you really stop to think 
    about it.  
    
    Clinton's "tax cut for the middle class" that got him going in the 
    primaries has turned into a 100+ Billion tax hike, and the press are 
    still bashing Bush at every opportunity about "read my lips".  I
    guess tax hikes must be just peachy so long as a Democrat hikes
    them.  Clinton  promises that the tax hike will be only on "the rich", 
    but I've got news for you--"the rich" don't have that much money even 
    if you took it *all*.  So where is the rest going to come from.....
    
    FWIW:  I believe that Clinton will probably win the election.
    The liberal controlled press seems to be taking every opportunity 
    to present their "unbiased" view of presenting everything Bush does 
    in as bad a light as possible.  But I also believe that after
    four years of Clinton, Clinton may well be the _last_ president
    from the Democratic party.  
    
    fred();
    

    Fred,
    
    if you are referring the to local media as liberal, what do you
    consider conservative?  
    
    They are bashing Bush because he has broken his word on many things.
    
    Meg

    re .141
    
>    if you are referring the to local media as liberal, what do you
>    consider conservative?  
>    
>    They are bashing Bush because he has broken his word on many things.
    
    The conservatives are angry because Bush caved in and signed the
    tax bill.  Most people don't seem to recall how that tax hike
    came into being and the "committee", and the growing libral media
    hysteria that the goverment was going to shut down and the 
    Social Security and welfare recipiants were not going to get their
    checks if Bush didn't sign the bill.
    
    My problem with Bush is not that he raised taxes, but that he
    caved in to the Democratic controlled congress and the liberal
    press.  I would rather have seen him shut the mess down like
    Pete Wilson of California did.  As Will Rogers once said, 
    "If they're not doing anything, then they can't hurt us".
    
    fred();

    Fred,
    
    My problem with Bush is not that he raised taxes.  My problem with him
    is that he is a bigot.  The Republican party platform sickens me and if
    he is re-elected we will see all of the progress that his been made in
    civil rights get turned back.  This scares me more than anything else.
    
    Karen

    has Bush ever submitted a "balanced budget"

    
    re Karen
    
    I believe that it is pure hysteria to suggest that we would return
    to the bigotry of the pre-60's.  I too happen to believe in equal rights,
    but then I happent to believe that things like quotas (which Bush has 
    fought but succeeded in stopping) and the "deadbeat dads" without
    mention of father's/children's rights are also bigotry--against me.
    
    fred();

    
    re .144
    
>    has Bush ever submitted a "balanced budget"
    
    Every one of Bush's budget's were submitted to conform to
    Grahm-Rudman(sp) in order to bring the budget into balance over
    a period of time.  Every one was DOA.  Did the Democrats
    ever say, "this budget doesn't go far enough"?  Ha! For every dollar
    of new revenue, they've spent three.  Wish I could do that.
    
    fred();

    re:.144
    
    Bush has never submitted one single balanced budget.
    
    His last budget called for a $291 billion deficit, what Congress
    finally approved carried a $289 billion deficit.
    
    You decide for yourself if it's Congress or Bush who's burying our
    economy in debt ...

    
    Better yet is to ponder what will happen with Clinton *and*
    a Democratic Congress will do.  If the 1990 tax hike put
    the economy in the position it's in now, just think what *another*
    $100G+ will do.
    
    It makes me gag too, but _one_ if these two guys _is_ going to
    be President.  Single issue voting is even more hazardous than
    coding in C.  Not voting at all is getting what you deserve.
    
    fred();

    At least we haven't yet caught Clinton's camp in an admission that it
    will continue to lie about the opponent because lying works or that it
    is desisting from personal attacks on the oppoment's wife not because
    the attacks are immoral but because they don't work.  This difference
    alone is enough to demonstrate that Clinton *might* be a better choice.
    
    -dick

    re .147
    
    >His last budget called for a $291 billion deficit, what Congress
    >finally approved carried a $289 billion deficit.
    
    Most, if not all, of the extra came out of Defense.  Which results
    in the layoff of people from defense jobs, closing or cutting
    back of military bases (ie jobs), early release of military personnel 
    (ie jobs).  Which the Democrats and press blame on Bush...go figure.
    
    Before you jump on the "cut Defense" bandwagon too hard, ponder
    how much of DEC's buisness comes from Defense and NASA.  Can you
    say TFSO?
    
    fred();

    re .149
    
    >At least we haven't yet caught Clinton's camp in an admission that it
    >will continue to lie about the opponent because lying works or that it
    >is desisting from personal attacks on the oppoment's wife not because
    >the attacks are immoral but because they don't work.  This difference
    >alone is enough to demonstrate that Clinton *might* be a better choice.
    
    Isn't it interesting how so many of this "equal rights" group believes
    that po' li'l would be co-president Hillary needs protection from
    them big bad Republicans.
    
    fred();

    RE: .151  Fred
    
    > Isn't it interesting how so many of this "equal rights" group believes
    > that po' li'l would be co-president Hillary needs protection from
    > them big bad Republicans.
    
    Hillary Clinton didn't need any "protection" from Bush and company
    when they were attacking her.
    
    As Clinton said, Bush can run for First Lady if he wants to (but
    Clinton says *HE* sure isn't going to live with George.)
    

re: Gov. Pete Wilson's "great performance" in Cal...

uh, Fred, I hate to bring this up...but Mr. Wilson has gutted the school
budget for this state - at a time when we are forced to absorb a record
number of immigrants from other parts of the world...and, before anyone
cheers too much, lets remember where YOUR social security payments are
going to come from...certainly, not from YOUR social security taxes..
you are paying the folks who are already collecting.  If you intend to
collect any money, you'd better be willing to pay for the education
needed to make todays children into working, tax-paying adults.  Then,
you might have a chance to collect.

Mr. Wilson's budget hasn't hurt any of his friends - their chunks of the
budget are still intact...he's simply managed to force a budget that
will deprive poor children of the basic necessities of life, and
all schools of the money needed to educate children...oh, and the
handicapped will no longer have the special education and at-home
assistance they need.  I guess we'll have to warehouse them in 
institutions - more expensive per person, but then the federal government
picks up more of the expense in this case, thereby allowing the state
to have a balanced budget.

Needless to say, Mr. Wilson's future political career in this state is
not looking rosey right now.  He thinks he can get elected on the
support from the right-wing bigots in S. California - but, there are
alot of other voters in this state - and he has managed to hurt just
about everyone except those rich enough to send their children to
private schools - approx. 10% of the voting public.  I don't think
he is going to be used as an example of a successful politician in
the future.

    re .153
    
    Well, you can raise taxes in California all you want.  We could
    use a few _more_ compainies moving to Colorado.  That is if we
    can keep Romer from running them all out of Colorado too.
    
    As somebody once said...Any government that can give you everything 
    you want can take everything you got.
    
    fred();