| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 214.1 | | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | Squash that bug! (tm) | Mon Mar 18 1996 21:49 | 16 |
| Bravo.
The truth is, single mothers who decide not to work, can simply
cut back and, more often then not, live off of child support from
their ex, or re-marry and retire. Men, however, have no such
choice, and would be thrown in jail for abbrogating their
parental duty to write a child support check.
Women have more choices. That being the case, I'm not all that
choked up about the possibility that they might have slightly
less opportunity in the work place - the opportunities are there,
they're just different ones...like early retirement. VERY early
retirement.
tim
|
| 214.2 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Tue Mar 19 1996 11:35 | 7 |
| Tim,
Wow! I am taken back by all this! I certainly agree with you. I know
that your a custodial dad and so am I. And if either one of us, God
Forbid, loose our jobs do what ever comes along the path of hurtful
unemployement, we are S.O.L. and are forced to take jobs well benieth
our levels of compantancy.
|
| 214.3 | Single Mothers Have itt Easy???? | WRKSYS::MATTSON | | Tue Mar 19 1996 16:32 | 40 |
| re. 214.1:
Where on earth did you get the idea that 'Single mothers who decide not
to work can cut back, live off child support, remarry, etc.'??
I was a single mother for many years, and I have had many friends who
have also been single mothers. Not a single one of us was ever able to
'cut back', on the contrary, we have all wound up working MORE, often
going to school on top of that, and constantly fighting burnout and
deep exhaustion. All the single mothers I've known, myself included,
wound up living under near-poverty conditions as well. haven't you read
that, after divorce, a woman's standard of living generally goes way
down, while the husbands' goes up? haven't you read that a MAJORITY of
people living within this country's poverty bracket are single-mother
families? As far as guys getting thrown in jail for lack of child
support, you do tend to hear about the rare cases where this happens;
what you don't hear about is the many-times-larger number of single
mothers who either don't get a cent of child support, or have to put up
with tiny or sporadic payments and on-going evasion tactics made by
angry exes. The truth is, it is very easy to get out of child support.
All you do is either skip out of the state or become self-employed.
The enforcement agencies are so bogged down in red tape they'll never
catch up to you. I know this from personal experience, and that of many
friends.
As far as remarrying as a means of support, why not just suggest that
single mothers become prostitutes??
You must have had some sort of negative experience which you are bitter
about, to have this attitude. Possibly you are one of those fathers who
does pay a large amount of child support. I am equally against women
trying to soak their exes for unreasonable amounts of support; however,
the vast majority of cases go to the other extreme. You hear less about
them because all these women's energy goes into survival. there's
little left over to try to change social policy.
As far as men having fewer choices than women, trust me, it's pretty
damn compelling to have no food in the refrigerator, a massive stack of
bills on the table, and a child you love dearly depending on you. There
are not a lot of ways out of that one. If you don't already have a
well-established career, you have to build one by going to school while
working full-time at a low-paying job. AND managing to be there for
your children. There is no such thing as rest or free time.
Yeah, women have it real easy.
|
| 214.4 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Tue Mar 19 1996 18:12 | 8 |
| .3 Both Tim and self are single dads too. We are working, and the
default of women as a precentage in child support is higher than men.
As a number percentage, men are more in the ncp role and women are cp.
As a percentage where men are cp's, and women are ncp's, women default
higher. Sources are DCYS of New Hampshire.
Thank You
|
| 214.5 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Tue Mar 19 1996 19:32 | 22 |
|
I have a sister-in-law that was one of your major "feminists". First
to work in Climax mine, Master Blaster license (yes folks were talking
explosives), management, etc. When her husband was laid off from the
mine, you'd have thought he was the biggest skumbag that ever walked
the Earth because he was a man and not working. A few years later
she decided she wanted to stay home and have kids. Guess what? "Guess
what, honey, I'm pregnant, ain't woman's reproductive rights
wonderful". Narry a word that she decided to stay home hand let
husband support her after all the *&^% about him not working.
Last Christmas, at the family dinner, she ranted on through the whole
dinner about what slimebags men were because they wouldn't support
their kids. Her husband just sat there staring at the wall. I finally
had to get up and go home before there was a major scene.
BTW, I'm another CP father who hasn't seen a dime in child support for
several years.
fred();
|
| 214.6 | | WRKSYS::MATTSON | | Tue Mar 19 1996 19:53 | 30 |
| .4, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to prove. It's wrong
for a ncp of either sex to default on child support. It's also very
wrong to use the whole issue of child support as a battleground for the
parents to take out their anger on each other. this happens a lot, both
by withholding child support, or by getting a good lawyer to procure
huge, unreasonable amounts of child support. Both are wrong, whether
the man or woman does it. the child always suffers the most.
Also, I'm sure that both you and Tim, as single fathers, have some
idea of the kind of stress that single parenthood entails. His
assumptions that women have any less conscience towards their children,
or any easier ways out of the situation, were grossly misinformed. On
the whole, women probably wind up as single mothers at a much less
developed stage of their career, than do men, meaning they have less
earning power. Add to that the wage disparity between men and women.
More women than men will have to go back to school to increase their
earning power to a livable degree. Can you imagine being in a situation
where, on top of the stress you already experience as a single parent,
you can't make enough to survive, and the only way out is to go to
school nights after working all day? I did exactly that for eight
years. So did two of my friends. i don't know a single woman who got
enough child support to work less than full-time.
I don't think you'll find too many single mothers who 'drop out.' I
don't believe the basenote article was talking about single-parent
situations anyway.
Besides, Tim could always find a nice, well-off career woman, and then he
could drop out!! It's about as reasonable as what he's suggesting.
|
| 214.7 | | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | Squash that bug! (tm) | Tue Mar 19 1996 20:05 | 8 |
| Yup, whether the ladies like it or not, there's definitely a double standard.
It's about time it got out in the public eye along side of the much-overblown
Deadbeat Dad/Martyred Mom urban legend.
If women can't even support themselves, what makes them the default choice for
taking care of kids too? Nothing at all. The whole system is out of whack.
tim
|
| 214.8 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Tue Mar 19 1996 23:58 | 9 |
|
Over half of divorced fathers _do_ pay their child support and over 3/4
pay at least partial support (although paying partial is just as bad
in the eyes of the law as not paying at all). Taking into consideration
the transfer of income via "child support", you'll have a heck of a time
convincing me that men have more _disposable_ income than women these
days.
fred();
|
| 214.9 | | WRKSYS::MATTSON | | Wed Mar 20 1996 11:42 | 24 |
| Hey, two wrongs have never made a right. There are a lot of double
standards for both men and women. Double standards are wrong. You don't
have to be Dick tracy to figure that out.
Being a single parent is an extremely tough job for anyone. there are a
lot of very conscientious fathers out there. There are a lot of men who
get 'taken' for child support. There are women who don't pay child
support. There are scumbags of both sexes. All this is true.
I guess I personally took offense to the statements that women have more
ways out than men. I never felt that I had any of these options. I have
worked very hard to earn every single thing I've ever had. I feel that
I've had to pay the same dues as any man, while living with the double
standard imposed on women, i.e., not serious about career, lots of ways
out, etc. It's no more the fault of men as a whole than of women. There
are people of both sexes who continue to perpetuate the inequalities of
the whole system. Reverse prejudice is no more OK than the prejudice
that occurred in the first place. I'm certainly not trying to start a
war between the sexes. Maybe I should get out of this men's issue file.
I was only trying to give the perspective of a woman who's been there.
But maybe you don't want to think about both sides of the issue.
|
| 214.10 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Wed Mar 20 1996 12:25 | 17 |
| .6 What I am not trying to prove is that you have a very broad brush
and have some stats that are also inacurate. Clearly the crap about men
living a higher standard of living after a divovce esp if they are the
NCP is pure-fictional-crap. I can and would be more than happy as heck
to show you to the contrair. Insofar as men being tossed in jail as an
ocasional incident, this is because that the beloved media cannot sell
the concept in news. Its easy to sell women as the victims than men as
the victums. Men make better villians than women.
Insofar as the back to school, I am working on my masters in computer
science. I have a number of other custodial dads doing the same and
know a number of ncp dads doing the same. sooooo. I think the burn out
is a something we all share. But, its 70% of the women who file the
divorce papers not the men. So 70% of all marriages, women are married
to rasputin, neandrethal, drunkard, who drink the check, beat the wife,
beat the kids, and of course run off with the young blonde woman from
the office... I donno about this sterio typing crap...
|
| 214.11 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Wed Mar 20 1996 12:26 | 2 |
| I can show you some real people who could certainly blow off the stats
on the 'occasional man tossed in jail'.
|
| 214.12 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Wed Mar 20 1996 13:04 | 5 |
|
How do you tell a "deadbeat dad" form a "welfare mom" who won't work
and do her part to support her kids? He's the one wearing handcufs.
fred();
|
| 214.13 | | WRKSYS::MATTSON | | Wed Mar 20 1996 14:25 | 1 |
| No offense, but I can see why some of you guys are divorced.
|
| 214.14 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Wed Mar 20 1996 14:56 | 6 |
|
> No offense, but I can see why some of you guys are divorced.
Now there's a nonsequitur if ever I saw one.
fred();
|
| 214.15 | | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | Squash that bug! (tm) | Wed Mar 20 1996 14:56 | 26 |
| >No offense, but I can see why some of you guys are
>divorced.
No, I really doubt that you can. These reactions are
the result of the divorce, and the glaringly anti-male
prejudicial culture and system that works to subjugate
men as parents.
I agree with you when you say that a double standard in
either gender is wrong. The biggest problem, in the
view of men like us, is that the only double standard
that anyone is doing anything about is the one against
women. The double standard imposed upon men is ignored,
or even worse, accepted as being ok. That's really
infuriating, when the gun is pointed at you.
The point is that many women are so caught up in their
own plight, and the propaganda that supports their
self-pity, that they don't even realize that they're not
all that special, not all that different, and perhaps
much better off than their male counterparts. They are
the ones that don't want to look at both sides.
The men have no choice in that matter.
tim
|
| 214.16 | | WRKSYS::MATTSON | | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:33 | 35 |
| Womaen had to fight for a long time to bring discrimination to the
attention of the media; maybe the same is happening with men now. If
you're getting an unfair deal, maybe it's up to you to speak up. I can
respect that men are realizing that the system doesn't always work to
their advantage. I say it's the system, not women who are at fault. I
would ask that you try not to let bitterness towards your own
experiences cloud your attitude towards women in general. Many of us
are very hard-working, responsible, and fully expect to pull our own
weight. As are many men.
It is a simple fact that women *on the average* do earn less than men,
even adjusting for career differences. The gap is narrowing, but it is
still there. It is also a fact that the fastest-growing poverty bracket
is single-mother families. And that women *on the average* have a
lower standard of living post-divorce. I'm sure I can come up with
statistics to corroborate this. Knowing this does not make me hate the
whole male sex. maybe it's partly the women's fault too. There may be
prejudicial attitudes toward men, but those do not make the
inequalities faced by women any more right.
The system is sick. People
need to work harder and harder to make ends meet, there is less leisure
time and people are under more stress than ever. I totally agree that
it's very tough on men too. men are traditionally raised to be the
breadwinners. This still happens, and I disagree with that as well.
I raised my daughter to expect to support herself, and develop her career
to a degree where she would be able to support a child herself if
necessary. I never suggested to her that marriage was a way out, or
that she should look to a man to be a 'provider'. If she has children,
hopefully she and her husband will negotiate fairly about how the
various responsibilities are split up.
This is a tough time for all of us. Prejudice won't solve anything.
|
| 214.17 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:57 | 11 |
| .16 ... This is what we are trying to do. Make change. Guess some
people like yourself cannot change or open your eyes to your own self
pitty pot plight.
Your right about the system to be the fault. But it is the women who
abuse the system. No wonder your divorced with the lines of broad
brushing you have typed in this file. Looks to me as though your here
to rub our noses in the bitterness that the 70% women divorcing men
because we are neanderthals.
|
| 214.19 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:59 | 28 |
|
> And that women *on the average* have a
> lower standard of living post-divorce. I'm sure I can come up with
> statistics to corroborate this.
I'd like to see those statistics. I'd be especially interested in
seeing the transfer if income in "child support" is factored in.
Also factor in the transfer of payments from 20% of my income
being taken in taxes to support women on welfare who consume much
and produce nothing.
>It is also a fact that the fastest-growing poverty bracket
> is single-mother families
And yet women themselves have the most control over this situation
to "just say no", use contraceptives, or get an abortion, or maybe
they could cut down on the 70% of the divorces that _women_ file.
The fact is that the kid is the meal ticket for all too many of these
poor little "victims".
On McNeil/Leher(sp) last night they had a debate between economists
as to why the middle class didn't think the economy was so good.
They guy that mentioned the increase in the bite taxes take out
of "take home" pay got hushed up real quick, and nobody else brought
it up.
fred();
|
| 214.20 | | WRKSYS::MATTSON | | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:14 | 12 |
| Just in case anyone cares, I'm very happily remarried. I pay more than
half of the rent, because I earn more, and I don't have a problem with
that. So I didn't marry the dude for his money!
And I'm not here to rub anyone's nose in anything. I get mad when
ignorant, prejudicial blanket statements are made, and then the person
pisses and moans about the prejudice being done to them.
I'm not living in self-pity, I actually feel great about my life and I
have a real sense of accomplishment at what I've done. Sorry to rain on
your parade.
|
| 214.21 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:18 | 10 |
|
re .20
> And I'm not here to rub anyone's nose in anything. I get mad when
> ignorant, prejudicial blanket statements are made, and then the person
> pisses and moans about the prejudice being done to them.
I would suggest you stay away from tape recorders, then :^}.
fred();
|
| 214.22 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:28 | 1 |
| ...or stay away from mirrors that don't reflect your imiage.:)
|
| 214.23 | other views welcome. | SALEM::PERRY_W | | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:30 | 7 |
|
To the basenoter;
Thanks for entering your point of view! I don't agree with you on
everything but you're welcome into MN anytime.
Bill
|
| 214.24 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:56 | 35 |
|
I'd also like to see some study on the work/income/benefits
differential between men and women. First off there is the 40 odd
percentage of my income that gets sucked up in one tax or another--
Federal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, State Income, Property,
Auto license/road use, Gas, Sales, plus the hidden taxes that are
passed on as addition the price of consumer goods, and probably a
few that I haven't thought of. Add in the fact that there are several
government programs, College Financial Aid and Food stamps for
instance, where receiving child support is counted as income, but
paying child support is not deducted. Right now I am the CP so I don't
pay child support, but for a good percentage of men you have to take
out child support and transfer that income direct to the CP mother.
Not that I begrudge the money for _me_ do so, but for the sake of
argument, let's now factor in the fact that there are many more men who
support women to stay home and not work than there are women who work
and support men to stay home. The decision to go to work or to stay
home and let someone else support them (married or not) is pretty much
the decision of the woman and the woman alone (Estrich's argument).
Then factor in the food clothing, shelter, education, etc, etc, that go
to support other family members other than the "bread winner", and
what is left over for the man will make you begin to wonder why men get
married and have children at all.
Hmmmm, maybe the smart ones _are_ the ones to just find a woman who
will have sex with him without any commitment. After all, "women's lib"
has taught both women and men that men are irrelevant drones, if not
out and out dangerous, in todays society so what's the big deal if she
would rather throw him out or he would rather just walk than to try to
work out the problem. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a
bicycle--just keep those child support checks commin'. Right????
fred();
|
| 214.25 | | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | Squash that bug! (tm) | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:57 | 38 |
| I don't think this needs to get nasty. As a practicing
heterosexual, I have not become a woman-hater. I simply
apply the same values equally, and find the system to be at
fault in this realm. Having been the subject of
gender-bias myself on many instances in my five years as a
custodial father, I can empathize with the plight that some
few women actually face in their individual lives. I
don't, however, see gender bias as being the prevalent bane
of women only.
I seriously doubt that most women have faced the type of
prejudice that I have as a man, simply because in my
custodial parent role I run into it more often and more
blatantly than most women would in their role in the
typical workplace. "On average" statistics don't boil down
to the individual very well, and the remedial options for
gender discrimination in the workplace are far more
available than similar options for custodial fathers.
The popular notion that women are victims of discrimination
is by no means unfounded. It is obvious. The equally
popular notions that women make better parents, that
children 'belong' with their mother, at ANY age, that men
are only interested in custody for their own personal or
financial benefit, and that there's something intrinsically
wrong with a situation in which children live with their
father, are all examples of the other side of the gender
bias coin that few so-called equal rights advocates seem
willing to turn over.
Equal rights, to me, means that custody should be up for
negotiation based upon criteria that ignore gender. IMHO,
for example, a woman with no career, no direction in her
life, is a poor choice for custody. If you ignore her
gender, that should be obvious. Today, that is simply not
the case, nor has it ever been.
tim
|
| 214.26 | | WRKSYS::MATTSON | | Wed Mar 20 1996 19:45 | 15 |
| Ya gotta give me credit for taking on the readership of 'Men Notes'
with an unpopular (to men) point of view!! How would you like to post
your same notes in the Woman Notes file????? (Feel free to take that as
a challenge)
Anyway, just a few more points:
1. Believe it or not, Women pay taxes too!! I was in that 40% bracket
last year, too. It hurts, you are right.
2. .25, good argument (ignoring the 'some FEW women' qualifier)
I actually pretty much agree with you.
And on that note, I will go back to being Read-Only for a while--I'll
try at least! never was good at keeping my mouth shut!
|
| 214.27 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Wed Mar 20 1996 20:04 | 19 |
|
reply .26
> Ya gotta give me credit for taking on the readership of 'Men Notes'
> with an unpopular (to men) point of view!!
Indicating and acknowledgment that the point of view you have
expounded is not all that uncommon or unpopular to women?
>How would you like to post
> your same notes in the Woman Notes file????? (Feel free to take that
> as a challenge)
Thanks, anyway, for the vote that we, here, do seem to be more tolerant of
opposing points of view than other places.
fred();
|
| 214.28 | Good idea | RANGER::GOBLE | | Wed Mar 20 1996 20:37 | 16 |
|
re: reply .26
> How would you like to post
> your same notes in the Woman Notes file????? (Feel free to take that as
> a challenge)
Good idea (but, a different kind of challenge than you might think). I tried
to post info on Proposition 50/50 (see note 91 in this notesfile), sent mail
to about 6 listed moderators of Woman Notes asking if they would be interested,
(naively thought they would, but didn't want to "jam it in there, so to speak")
got no replies at all.
Surprised? Maybe you'd like to try and tell us what happens...
|
| 214.29 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Wed Mar 20 1996 20:53 | 17 |
|
Adendum re .26
> 1. Believe it or not, Women pay taxes too!! I was in that 40% bracket
> last year, too. It hurts, you are right.
The NCP (usually male) pays the tax on the "child support", so the
"child support" is tax free to the CP (usually female). Which makes
a child support + 40% difference in the amount of money the CP would
have to _earn_ to clear the same amount of money. Plus the CP usually
gets to to take the deduction for the kids on the IRS.
Likewise alimony. Just did my taxes and I don't recall a deduction
for "alimony paid". Although I don't have to pay any "spousal support"
so I could have missed it, but I don't think I did.
fred();
|
| 214.30 | questions and thoughts | GIDDAY::BACOT | | Thu Mar 21 1996 06:54 | 54 |
| just a couple of questions and a couple of thoughts...
>> Where on earth did you get the idea that 'Single mothers who decide not
what is meant by the term 'single mothers', does this only apply to
women who are CP or are NCP mothers, single mothers?
>> deep exhaustion. All the single mothers I've known, myself included,
>> wound up living under near-poverty conditions as well. haven't you read
>> that, after divorce, a woman's standard of living generally goes way
>> down, while the husbands' goes up? haven't you read that a MAJORITY of
How can this be? If a couple before marriage are making, for example,
63,000 together. 2 children. He makes 10% more than she does. 33,000
and 30,000. They divorce. She gets custody of both children. He now
pays $100 per week child support, so that's now 30,000 + $5,200(no tax)
The NCP now has $27,800 (but pays tax on 33,000)
The CP now has $35,200 (but pays tax on 30,000)
*Both* parties standard of living goes down because they have to
support separate households. right?
If the CP marries again she can go part time and still make as much as
she was before the divorce because of the additional income of child
support payments. Or one or the other of them could stay home and
live off of one salary as she has been doing this anyway.
>> angry exes. The truth is, it is very easy to get out of child support.
>> All you do is either skip out of the state or become self-employed.
I didn't realize becoming self-employed was considered easy. Or
skipping out of the state either. The implication here is that a
"many-times-larger number" of men care more about their money than they
do about their children or their jobs or their family or friends that
may live in that state. They quite easily give it all up to avoid child
support. I guess this is one of those, 'your mileage may vary' sort of
things. Most of the people I know aren't like that.
You must have had some sort of negative experience which you are bitter
about to have this attitude.
Women have had to do some 'consciousness raising' in the past to get
people to see the unfairness that they were experiencing. Is it that
difficult to see that fairness applies to men as well as women and that if
you devalue one you devalue both?
Regards,
Angela
|
| 214.31 | Alimony | MKOTS3::TINIUS | It's always something. | Thu Mar 21 1996 10:16 | 15 |
| Re .29
> Likewise alimony. Just did my taxes and I don't recall a deduction
> for "alimony paid". Although I don't have to pay any "spousal support"
> so I could have missed it, but I don't think I did.
Alimony paid is an "adjustment to income" (Form 1040 line 29) and is
subtracted from the payer's income to determine adjusted gross income
before taxes.
Alimony received is treated as ordinary income (Form 1040 line 11) and
is added to the recipient's income to determine adjusted gross income
before taxes.
-stephen
|
| 214.32 | A comment from a moderator | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Mar 21 1996 11:10 | 9 |
| This conference encourages the open participation of both men and
women. There is quite a difference in my mind between expressions of
opposing views and being told that your views aren't wanted here.
I work hard to maintain an egalitarian atmosphere here.
If everyone agreed on everything, there wouldn't be much point to
this, would there?
Steve
|
| 214.33 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Thu Mar 21 1996 11:26 | 31 |
| Another note along the 'self employed person can hid money'. Whelp....
I have several men who were FORCED to sell their business to pay off
the debts that their ex's attorney accrued, I know many a man whom had
to file bankruptcy so I guess the concept that NCP men's income goes up
after the divorce where CP moms goes below poverty. As a CP dad, I
Still filled bankruptcy. Nice touch, and although I do make more than
the ex does... I YET HAVE to take a vacation like she and her new beau
does/do to lovely places of paridice.... I am still paying on bills
that I could not discharge in the bankruptcy. I wonder what the stats
are with the below poverty level vs bankruptcy are?
I know a man whose ex IS the director of the state employment agency.
And used the STATE of NH's law offices to divorce this man. He to was
one of the self employed men... HE was forced to file bankruptcy, and
Forced under the courts to sell the business to pay bills and to settle
for the 50/50. There was no buyouts, no fincial plans, just sell it now
or go to jail.
There are other stories, non-ficition, of men who have not had it easy
in their divorces, contricting the fiction that ncp men have a higher
level of income than cp moms..
Insofar as writing in the womens notes. I have seen the womens notes
mods delete entire strings of men and womens entries that do not follow
the Party Line. I have tried myself to write in that file and have had
women slam me harder than reason. Its tuff enough trying to write in
this file without having my hand slapped by the mod.
Your welcome to view your opionions, its a free'er here than in the
womans notes reguarding your views. Just remember your talking to the
70% of us and many see thru the smoke screens.
|
| 214.34 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Thu Mar 21 1996 11:45 | 8 |
| I will also put a plug in for Steve L. and say that of the two worlds
of mods. I find that Steve is Much more fair and runs a better file. He
doesn't delete entire strings of entires because it isn't along the
'Party Line of thinking'. That is why you can find the differnt view in
this file that you cannot get else where. Steve and some of the us
don't always see eye to eye. But, he does try to play fair.
|
| 214.35 | | DANGER::MCCLURE | | Thu Mar 21 1996 12:47 | 57 |
|
Dear George;
I think you have some things to say, but your notes are often
difficult to understand. Consider the following:
.33 Whelp....
.33 I have several men who were FORCED to sell their business to pay off
.33 the debts that their ex's attorney accrued, I know many a man whom had
.33 to file bankruptcy so I guess the concept that NCP men's income goes up
.33 after the divorce where CP moms goes below poverty.
The string appears to be a single sentence because it has
a capitalized word at the beginning and "." at the end. It isn't.
If you changed the "," into a "." and made two sentences out of it, it
would be easier to read. But even if you do that, the second half is
an incomplete thought. Spell checking would also help.
The gist of your note seems to be that men get screwed in divorces
and end up bankrupt. Wasn't part of your financial problems an apartment
building you couldn't sell for what you needed ? If that is true, what
does it have to do with this topic ?
.33 There are other stories, non-ficition, of men who have not had it easy
.33 in their divorces, contricting the fiction that ncp men have a higher
.33 level of income than cp moms..
The statement that the standard of living of NCP men often
rises while the standard of living of CP women often falls is
a generalization. Citing a few examples of the exceptions doesn't
disprove the generalization.
It would make sense that in most cases the standard of living
of both fall initially. And both often resent the other and like to
get back at the other any way they can. Maybe noting here is a way
some men do that.
.33 ... although I do make more than
.33 the ex does... I YET HAVE to take a vacation like she and her new beau
.33 does/do to lovely places of paridice....
Does driving a Cadilac mean that one has a higher overall
standard of living than someone who drives a Hyundai ?? Or might it
mean different people make different choices with their money ? Or
does it mean you have discovered that being a CP requires more money
than being a NCP ? Wouldn't it be nice if your ex paid child
support?
.33 As a CP dad, I
.33 Still filled bankruptcy.
Does this mean that being a CP is expensive and leads to poverty ?
Or were you just in trouble because a deadbeat NCP didn't pay support ?
Or does this mean you got screwed because you are a male ? What is
your point ?
|
| 214.36 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Thu Mar 21 1996 14:25 | 20 |
| Sorry about my poor spelling and puncs. The keyboard on my pc isn't
mapped very well to do an on-line spell. Out side of these nits, I am
writing between phone calls and sometimes trying to finish a sentence
often before I pick up.
re bankruptcy: Dispite the stats that are questionable about women
living below poverty line after the divorce. There are many of us whom
filed bankruptcy, have had our business sold to pay off debts that the
ex and attorney have accured, and other things. My bankruptcy is in lew
of my divorce, and there are a number of debts that I could and cannot
blow off. I don't understand why this isn't brought up in these wars of
stats. But, I can certainly state that I know quite a few men who have
had filed, who have lost, and are NOT living the Cadi high life as you
would be led to believe.
Again, I will personally take you or anyone who is a non believer to a
fathers meeting. And show you the faces that are connected with the
horra show.
|
| 214.37 | | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | Squash that bug! (tm) | Thu Mar 21 1996 14:41 | 33 |
| Re: .30 (Angela Bacot)
>Is it that difficult to see that fairness applies to men as well as
>women and that if you devalue one you devalue both?
Brilliant. Thank you. It's nice to see a woman with a balanced
viewpoint. Will you marry me? ;-)
Not a criticism, but more of a "actually it's a bit worse" addendum to
your note: At least in Massachusetts, USA, the child support guidelines
for 2 children are somewhere between 25% and 33% of the NCP's gross
income. That places it between $8,250 and $11,000 per year
($158.65/$211.53 per week), so it's even worse than your estimates.
The mother gets $38,250 or $41,000 and the father is left with $24,750
or $22,000. The mother gets a $2,250 federal tax deduction for each
child, too, so she pays taxes on $33,250/$36,000 at the most.
This basically puts the father very close to the poverty line. If his
income is higher, his taxes go up, and more goes to the ex-wife, so he
remains poor. It's actually possible for a NCP father in Massachusetts
who makes a very decent wage, to be left with under 20% of his gross
income after child support and taxes: 38% maximum Child support with
three or more teenagers, 35% maximum federal taxes for $50,000 annual
income or more, ~6% state income taxes, ~5% Social Security taxes -
Total: 83%. Net income:17%. 17% of $50,000 is $8,500, or $163.46 per
week. Poverty.
The thing that really cheeses me off (?) is that there is no effort to
even look at which parent is better qualified to handle the job of
custodial parent. The only qualification the courts consider is
gender.
tim
|
| 214.38 | A simple discrimination test | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Mar 21 1996 15:26 | 9 |
| A question for women: (this was in =WM= a while back by me too)
If more than 50% of the fathers in divorce are deemed fit to be the CP,
and want to be, then why should not custody be awarded to 50% of the
fathers?
Rules: no equal joint custody ect. Plain and simple only one parent can
be CP. If >50% of the men are deem fit to be CP and want to be and only 20%
actually get to be CP, is this not discrimination...?
|
| 214.39 | hear me out | WRKSYS::MATTSON | | Thu Mar 21 1996 15:31 | 50 |
| Here I am back again, that feminist everyone loves to hate!! Couldn't
resist. OK, I think a little backing up is in order. First off, I never
meant to offend or attack anyone. I try very hard to be fair and see
evryone's point of view. If anyone would care to re-read note .2, I
think you would agree that it's quite inflammatory. Yet no one seems to
address that little factoid. On the other hand, everything I've said
has been taken in the worst possible context. It's clear that some
people want to write me off as one of the bad guys and not even hear me
out. If you actually read everything I said, you would see that I am
tryingto be fair, admitting that men often get discriminated against,
etc. Another issue is becoming obvious: this is an issue which is very
related to socioeconomic status. Keep in mind that the statistics
represent a cross-section of all socioeconomic status, not just the
middle/upper-middle class we are fortunate enough to be a part of.
This includes the crack-heads in the ghetto, teenage mothers, etc. You
can bet your ass that these people are neither earning $30,000/year
before divorce, nor collecting $100/week child support after. I have
been in the unusual position of crossing some of the 'class' boundaries
in the last ten years. Ten years ago, I was a !!!cleaning lady!!!
receiving no child support at all. By borrowing a lot of money, and
yes, getting some grants, (which my ample tax money is helping to
repay now,) I was able to graduate with a computer
science degree and in the last 10 years, my income has at least
quadrupled. The events which led to me ever being a cleaning lady are a
whole other issue and I don't intend to go into my whole life story
here. Suffice it to say that I didn't have the luxury of a lot of
choices, at age 19, when I had my daughter, having come from a very
unstable background. My ex-husband, although he
had a mechanical engineering degree, never worked in that field and was
unable to even keep a minimum-wage job for any amount of time, due to
emotional problems. He chose not to get help, so at age 22, I wound up
on my own. The court ordered child support of $25.00 a week. That
amount never changed. I rarely saw the $25; weeks would go by with no
payments at all. Finally he disappeared to another stae. It was only a
couple of years ago that he was located in New York state. I now get A
check for $8 (yes, eight dollars) every two weeks, through no doing of
my own. I certainly don't need it now. So I send it to my daughter
(who's 21 and about to graduate college). maybe I am somewhat bitter
about what I had to go through, but that doesn't make me blind to the
fact that there are many deeply conscientious fathers, many of whom
have to go through plenty of discrimination themselves. I would bet,
just from the notes inthis file, that on the whole, middle-class
fathers are more conscientious about child support. It is true that I
have several friends who have gone through similar situations to mine.
It just goes to show you that there are some pretty major class
differences in this country still, and 'reality' for someone with only
a high-school diploma is not the same as 'reality' for someone with a
high-tech education. I've learned that first hand. Anybody can make a
suceess of their life, but it can require different amounts of work,
depending on where you come from.
|
| 214.40 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Thu Mar 21 1996 16:02 | 47 |
|
re .39
> Keep in mind that the statistics
> represent a cross-section of all socioeconomic status, not just the
> middle/upper-middle class we are fortunate enough to be a part of.
> This includes the crack-heads in the ghetto, teenage mothers, etc. You
> can bet your ass that these people are neither earning $30,000/year
The problem I have, not necessarily with you personally but with
the "man-hate" feminists, is that they use the flip-side of your
argument, the low end of the status, to justify the rape of _all_
fathers.
If you look at the statistics, half of all NCP fathers pay their
child support, another 25% pay at least some support (indicating
they are trying but probably just not capable of paying full support),
and how many of the remaining 25% really just plain _cannot_ pay is not
stated. Yet the few who really are deadbeats (and I don't for one
second defend them because they give the rest of us a bad name) are
used to paint the whole.
The screws on paying full support are being turned tighter and tighter.
It is now a _felony_ to actively avoid paying child support.
The big push to collect child support is driven more by the desire
of the state to fill it's coffers than any sort of compassion. The
money collect for "child support" only goes to reimburse the state
for the "Aid For Dependent Children", etc. The child does not see
one penny more either way. What's more I have seen more than one
case where the mother left welfare, and the state _continued_ to
_keep_ the child support payments until all arearage to them was
paid in full before sending the money on to the mother.
Regretfully denial of visitation does not hit the state in the
pocketbook much, so.......
And yes _you_ did work to stay off welfare and improve your position,
and I applaud you for that. I walked nearly the same road while
_paying_ child support (and remamber that paying child support is not a
decuction on the Finanncial Aid Forms), but again I ask, What is the
difference in a father who won't work and pay child support and a
mother who won't work and get off welfare?
fred();
|
| 214.41 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Thu Mar 21 1996 16:40 | 19 |
| .39 I don't feel what I have written inflamatory. I too have worked my
butt side to get the little bit I have out of life. I have pumped gas,
flipped burgers, contracted cleaned and did this over the last few
years to keep my attorney well paid and the bills paid up.
The crap-flap I don't like is the broad brush that men get as a whole
being a bunch of neanderthal-deadbeat-wife beaters. And the constant
din of pooor women have life ruff as men live the high life. I can show
you actual life faces to connect with the stories that I write in here.
I can Even show you the man, Jan, who was Dragged out of his bed and
into an awaiting car. Womens faces don't show up on the post office
walls for denying visation to the fathers of their children. IF your a
non custodial dad in New Hampshire, you can look at living on $400.00
per month retainment/living expence. Lets see... where could I find a
place to live for under $400 per month, eat, pay car payments, and find
some way to buy extras for the kids... Doesn't sound like a good life
to look forward to for the next 18-24 years....
|
| 214.42 | | DANGER::MCCLURE | | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:00 | 11 |
|
.41 IF your a
.41 non custodial dad in New Hampshire, you can look at living on $400.00
.41 per month retainment/living expence.
I am not familiar with support guidelines in New Hampshire.
Can you please enlighten me what this means ? Are you saying a man
earning $50k/year will only get to keep $5k/year to live on ? Or
are you saying that any man earning more than $400/month has to pay
some child support ? Or are you saying something else ?
|
| 214.43 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:09 | 8 |
| A man who makes any amount of money, can count on living on $4800 per
year to have in his pockets if the system wishes. Asin you have more
that 3 or 4 kids, mortgage, etc. This is beyond 2/3's of your income
taken to support the ex and your children. The NCP dad can safely count
on living on $4800 to keep to live on for an anual income. I would
sumize this is below the poverty line?
|
| 214.44 | I'm a CP *and* an NCP | TEXAS1::SOBECKY | It's complicated. | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:19 | 13 |
|
Well, I'm in the position of being both a CP and an NCP.
I have custody of my son (his mother threw him out, I took him in)
and my daughter lives with her mother (for right now, as I'm
fighting for custody). I pay child support (lots!) but receive
none.
I just wanted to say, I'm broke either way I look at it. So I can
empathize with both sides on this issue.
John
|
| 214.45 | Everyone's Loss | TIMBER::PEDERSON | | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:26 | 30 |
| Good going Mattson!!!!
I think you are being honest and clear with your arguments, and
deserve some support. At least, I am going to present another
woman's point of view.
Sometimes I get real sad, when I talk to a man who has recently
divorced. Usually, he has moved out of a single family home,
with his children and associated family life, into a small
garden apartment. But, this is only the case where the ex-wife
has kept the children. Divorce sucks --- ideally it would
be nice for everyone to live happily ever after, but regrettably
that doesn't happen. What is a fact is that woman are better
nurturers and caretakers for children on the whole. Therefore,
they get the home, and need money to help support the couple's
children. What other solution is there -- oh yes, find
another husband, go on welfare, get a low-paying job and
help their children dive into poverty. Now, I must admit this
latter is a silly idea -- wouldn't you say. Both people
(by whoever's choice or non-choice) brought these children
into the world -- and what we are really talking about is
having your children raised in the best possible environment --
right? And, financially, if the woman is physically taking
care of them, then the ex-husband has to help too -- right --
and vice-versa.
Maybe divorce (though at times absolutely necessary) makes
everyone lose -- but isn't it the children who we want to
lose the least? And, regrettably, our loss frequently
comes from our pocket (but also our and our children's emotions).
|
| 214.46 | | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | Squash that bug! (tm) | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:35 | 35 |
| Re: .39
>If you actually read everything I said, you would see that I am
>tryingto be fair, admitting that men often get discriminated against
>etc.
Try breaking it up into paragraphs - it's easier to read. ;-)
But I did. And I agree, for the most part...but once again you're
using the exception to the rule to demonize the whole:
>This includes the crack-heads in the ghetto, teenage mothers, etc. You
>can bet your ass that these people are neither earning $30,000/year
>before divorce, nor collecting $100/week child support after.
A small minority. Focus on the general case, and the situation is
quite different. Tens of millions of divorced families are out there.
I think the problem is solvable, but it will take, as Angela points
out, a major consciousness raising on the part of women, who generally
appear to have a very biased and closed perspective on the subject
right now. The media catches this trend, and plays to it.
I think if the two parties don't agree on custody to begin with, then
they should be evaluated independently and as objectively as possible
on all aspects of their capacity to be a good parent. Gender doesn't
count for squat, either way. Stability, including emotional, physical,
ethical, financial, and intellectual, should count for a lot more than
they do now. Right now, an unemployed alcoholic mother has a better
chance of getting custody than a professional, college educated and
otherwise stable father, simply because of gender. That kind of
blatant, and pervasive discrimination is obvious as hell, and way too
common.
tim
|
| 214.47 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:38 | 15 |
|
> What is a fact is that woman are better
> nurturers and caretakers for children on the whole. Therefore,
> they get the home, and need money to help support the couple's
> children. What other solution is there -- oh yes, find
The "women as better nurturers and caretakers" is sexist and facetious.
If it applies at all it is only to the very young. We have argued
this several times already here. The older kids get, the more they
need _fathers_.
Another solution: If the father is willing and able to support and
raise the kids, give custody to him.
fred();
|
| 214.48 | | NAC::TRAMP::GRADY | Squash that bug! (tm) | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:38 | 17 |
| Re:.45
>What is a fact is that woman are better nurturers and caretakers for
>children on the whole.
What??? Prove it.
That's the most blatantly sexist statement I've read all year. I
strongly suggest that you retract it. I find it extremely offensive.
>And, regrettably, our loss frequently comes from our pocket (but also
>our and our children's emotions).
Only if you're male. That's the problem.
tim
|
| 214.49 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:58 | 5 |
| 214.50 | women only see from their point of view | WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM | | Thu Mar 21 1996 18:52 | 8 |
| Gee, I wonder what would happen if all men were CPs and women had the
same raw deal that men have had.
How many woman would pay CS and how many would skip town, work under the
table or in general not live up to the conditions setup by the courts.
I know I have not seen a dime from my X for over 4 years and I don't
expect to either, but, well you know women... ;)
Dom
|
| 214.51 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Thu Mar 21 1996 19:04 | 16 |
|
re .50
Statistics show that NCP Moms are much worse about not paying child
support than men. For one thing it is easier for some "deadbeat mom"
to just not work and find some guy to live off of. Since the CS is
based only on her income.....
And I hate to keep repeating myself, but--What is the difference in a
man who won't work and pay child support and a "welfare mom" who won't
work (or at least go to school) and do _her_ part to support _her_ kids?
Another big double standard: If it comes to custody/visitation they
are _her_ kids, but when it comes to support they are _his_ kids.
fred();
|
| 214.52 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Thu Mar 21 1996 19:48 | 5 |
| Try:
http://www.vix.com/men/orgs
for the disbelivers.
|
| 214.53 | CP's should be accountable | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:57 | 37 |
| (I've been read-only for a while, I think this is the first note
I've written in here, guess I should go introduce myself, although I'm
probably no stranger to some of you :-)
Part of the problem is a lack of accountability from the CP
about where the money goes. My SO voluntarily pays more than
his minimum for child support. He voluntarily paid an extra
$5,000 per years to send the older child to an expensive college.
I picked up the household expenses in order for him to be able
to do this - I don't mind, I don't have kids of my own. However,
our house isn't an alternate home like it should be. The kids visit
mostly because they figure it keeps the money coming. They don't stay
long, and they rarely stay over, even though we maintain bedrooms for
both of them. Trying to get them to stop over on a holiday is
an exercise in futility. Their mother gives us no accounting for how
she spends the money, except to tell us she doesn't have any,
although she and her SO both have new cars this year, a new deck
went on the house last year, and the Mom, SO and the kids trotted
off to Florida this week as a gradution gift. We just pay for the
college, and buy them each a car to go back and forth with. Mom pays for
the books. We drive used cars and don't take vacations. She just
ripped him right out of her children's lives because it wasn't
convenient for her to have him around anymore, and that's wrong.
IMO, she has not fulfilled her role as a CP by ensuring that their
father has an active and important role in his children's lives. It's
ridiculous that the CP is not more accountable to the NCP for not only
how they spend the money, but also how they make the important decisions
about child rearing, and how they portray the children's father in the
home.
That said, I can also assure you that if you divorce without children,
and make more money than your ex, gender has absolutely no advantage.
You will get screwed, not just once, but all the way down the line.
I'm living proof of that.
Mary-Michael
|
| 214.54 | | MROA::YANNEKIS | | Fri Mar 22 1996 14:15 | 13 |
|
> And I hate to keep repeating myself, but--What is the difference in a
> man who won't work and pay child support and a "welfare mom" who won't
> work (or at least go to school) and do _her_ part to support _her_ kids?
I see a difference not that it necessarily defends the behavior. The
CP (in your scenario the women) has to worry about the day-to-day
physical care of the kids. Getting past that hurdle *can* make working
or going to school very difficult. In general I do not believe the
same hurdle exists for NCP.
Greg
|
| 214.55 | Did she say that just to stir things up? | TEXAS1::SOBECKY | It's complicated. | Fri Mar 22 1996 14:29 | 18 |
|
I want to add my voice to those that take issue with Pederson's
statement in reply .45, where she said that women, on the whole,
are better caretakers and nurturers than men are. That is nothing
but bulls***, and she knows it.
Generalized statements like that are part of the prevailing mindset
that men face in divorce courts, and why they usually lose custody
battles even when it is obvious that they are the better parent.
And yes, I believe that the income of each parent should weigh into
the decision on who gets custody. Given all other things being
equal, maybe the parent that earns the most should get custody,
since they can better provide for the children financially.
John
|
| 214.56 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Fri Mar 22 1996 14:46 | 18 |
|
> I want to add my voice to those that take issue with Pederson's
> statement in reply .45, where she said that women, on the whole,
> are better caretakers and nurturers than men are. That is nothing
> but bulls***, and she knows it.
Not an attack, more of an in-addition-to. Even _if_ granted that "in
general" is true, "in general" indicates an average, not an absolute.
The way that the situation is treated in the courts is more of an
"always" than an "in general". Even if "in general" were true I would
expect to see more men get custody.
fred();
|
| 214.57 | kids go to school, what the mom doing? | WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM | | Fri Mar 22 1996 15:04 | 6 |
| re .54 Greg
Gee Greg, when the kids are in school does your statement still
apply???
Dom
|
| 214.58 | | MROA::YANNEKIS | | Fri Mar 22 1996 15:41 | 16 |
|
> Gee Greg, when the kids are in school does your statement still
> apply???
Yes, not as tough as when they are real little. The CP has to schedule
around school drop-offs and even togher pick-ups. Until the kids can
safely be latch-key kids I believe the CP has it tougher.
Can they get at least part-time work when the kids are in school?
absolutely! Do I think I think the welfare system (and family court
system) need overhauling? absolutely. Do I think CPs and NCPs are in
the same boat as far as the ease of being able to work? absolutely not
... it is much easier for the NCP.
Greg
|
| 214.59 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Fri Mar 22 1996 16:37 | 26 |
| re .54
> Getting past that hurdle *can* make working
> or going to school very difficult. In general I do not believe the
> same hurdle exists for NCP.
Going back to school can be almost impossible for an NCP. Going
to school and not working is not a reason to not pay child support
(yes I realize I used a double negative). Even though going to
school would probably improve the NCP's ability to pay child support
in the future, the courts want their pound of flesh _now_. So you
figure you will go apply for food stamps to make up the difference.
Guess what?--Paying child support is not a deduction for income when
applying for food stamps. So you take a part time job to pay the
child support. Guess What?--Child support is not a deduction from
income on the FAF (Financial Aid Form). So they whack your Financial
Aid and and you are right back where you started. Loans are part
of the Financial Aid Package so no help there, and paying tuition
and living _and_ paying child support can be nearly impossible without
some sort of Financial Aid.
I managed to do it. Thanks to Alpo and Salvation Army and a _very_
understanding girlfriend (now wife). Not something I would want to
do again.
fred();
|
| 214.60 | CPs can work FT and make it | WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM | | Fri Mar 22 1996 17:13 | 10 |
| re .58
My son had to go to school and I did pick him up at his grammy's
after school and dropped him off at school in the morning. Once kids
are in school, there is no reason not to get a job period. Most people
have some family or friends that they can depend on to help them out.
Alot of people just simply try to take this situation for a ride as
long as they can. The cards are just simply stacked against men
period.
Dom
|
| 214.61 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Fri Mar 22 1996 18:11 | 12 |
| There is a danger of latch-key kids being by themselves and studies
about their self motovation. I am not sure of all the details, the up
shot of it is that children who have an after school program, or a
parent at a home to go to par better in school and in life than those
who are of the 'latch-key' club.
As a CP, I do have help, and have had help as needed. Friends, family,
and even mom helps.
Anyone see any of the stats on domestic violence in the mens web page?
|