mens rights

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

RE: mens rights

zap · texaschickeee translator

KatScratch wrote:

E-con, the point I was saying about Zaps "comment" was that the real problem has nothing to do with the P.O.S. (piece of shit) women who use the kids to bang out a check, that's the same finger pointing game the femi-nazies use when they say it is ALL the guys fault that they got pregnant in the first place. It's the system's (Child Support Agency's) fault for making it possible, for capitolizing on greed and using "women's rights" as a guideline for getting their (the system's) cut. To say it is because more than a few women have their greedy little hands out....that's just a finger in the wrong direction. Want to bitch, go to the real problem the system that allows the bullshit in the first place! A lot of the debate/discussion thus far was logical and true until that statement. That statement may be a true expression of his thought, but it is based on an emotional response to point the preverbial finger and not to go the next step and see the system is corrupted in the way it capitolizes on the P.O.S.!

Alright....I was going to let the rest of this go...but it is clear you don't understand what I am talking bout Kat. Lets back up.....

1) KatScratch wrote: There's a big difference between responsibilities and paying a woman to sit at home and pay her rent & utilities for her all in the name of child support! It's not a woman's right to get child support just because she can.... The "concept" of it may have been a good idea, but the way it has actually worked is totally fucked up!

2) zap wrote: That is an all to familar picture of a woman who not only was not responsible, but also continues to choose not to be

3) KatScratch wrote: No you are wrong Zap, this was not an example of an irresponsible woman at all...it IS how truly fucked up the child support system is to allow such shit to happen in the first place! No one woman designed the system and not all women exploit the system. The system takes advantage of an idea and twists people (and children's) lives to get their cut. It's a crock of shit!

4) zap wrote: Yeah...but if there were not "more than a few" gals whining with their hands out....the system would not have become so screwed up in the first place now would it.

5) zap wrote: Besides....it does not change ANYthing I said before now does it? KatScratch wrote: But it does take away from the open mindedness and non-childish concept of your previous statements????

1) You are absolutely correct. That is the part we can't get plush/mad to look at honestly. Notice that you even mentioned that it was a GOOD IDEA... EVERY social experiment is a good idea for someone. (Well...most of them anyway) Why were the child support laws put into place? Because POS guys were walking out on their families at a time when the wife could not support them. I agree there needs to be responsibility.

2) Agreeing with your comment in 1, I am saying that more and more women are starting to use their irresponsible acts of getting pregnant (equally responsible with the guy mind you) as a way to saddle the guy with support so that she does not have to work, etc., thereby continuing to be irresponsible. Keep in mind, not only do many get child support...but they also get welfare benefits as well. (medical, dental, pshyciatric, foodstamps, a check, free rent, etc etc)

3) You are telling me that I am wrong for agreeing with you. Departing from your previous concept...you now tell me it is not the women who you recognize as abusing the system, but rather the system that causes them to abuse it. Think about this for a second. I pay 2% poundage (administrative fees) That isn't enough to pay for the system that is in place I don't think. Granted, it could be if you figure enough money moves through the system. But why is the system there? The system is there based on a good idea that you even recognized in 1. If the father or mother does not support their child...you and I will be supporting them via welfare benefits somehow. What is the catch?? The catch is that if you are the female in the equation....you will be able to keep the child resulting from your intentional irresponsible action. After all...you have ALL the RIGHTS...and make ALL the decisions. Hell...the only thing the guy can do is PAY YOU until that child is 18 or 21. Maybe he will get to see the child a couple times a week. But as you said yourself....child support is figured based on the income of the parents....not what is needed to raise the child.

Can't you see that this is a recipie for what amounts to long-term self-employment? Have a fling with a respectible guy, lie or make a mistake and get pregnant, have a baby that is MINE, get to call ALL the shots....and get paid for it for the next 20 years. While you and plush may not be that way....there are a lot of gals who are I'm sad to say.

4) This was my attempt to pull you back to the reason of your prior comment. The system did not become self aware and decide to fix things so it could employ a bunch of people, and make criminals out of guys and life blood suckers out of women. The system was created to solve the problem of the women who honestly needed help. However, just like everything else...more and more figured out the self-employment aspect of the deal and started clamering for more and more and more. They are the ones who pushed this so far out of skew like it is today. Child support more and more is not about raising the child. If it were, it would be based on need, not income. It is more and more about punishing the guy (only because the guys are typically the ones paying because they don't have the rights of keeping the child like the woman does)

5) I point out that regardless of your emotional response to my wording...the argument is still as logical and sound as it was prior to that last post. However, you insist on saying that your emotional reaction negates admited logical, open-minded, and thoughtful, points I have made previously. *shakinghishead*

Let's trim this down. The system was set up with good intentions to hold guys responsible. The system would have never been set up without a need (IE women with thier hands out...honest or otherwise), and the system continues to grow because more and more women continue to stick out their hands. No matter how hard you try...you can't say "The system MADE me get pregnant!" You were the one responsible equally with your partner. BUT, women turn to the system and say I want ALL of the rights, and I want HIM TO PAY for them.

Don't you see...there is no way to fix the system unless you give equal rights to the guys. If the guy has equal rights and equal say, it will severely impact the 'self-employment' option for irresponsible women who use children as a source of income. It would reduce child support amounts from 'as much as he can pay' to what is actually need to support the CHILD......(not his siblings and his mom and her new boyfriend/next sperm donor)

Understand also...that the majority of guys I know....pay support because they were in relationships or marriages with women who just decided they didn't want the guy any more. I am a rarety....I am the plaintiff in my divorce. Normally, the gal decides fuck it....he still has to pay me....and I can do what I want without his dishes and laundry. So, guys who do nothing wrong end of paying support without the rights that go along with being a dad that they want to be.

That is the part of the system that is messed up.

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

Let's trim this down. The system was set up with good intentions to hold guys responsible. The system would have never been set up without a need (IE women with thier hands out...honest or otherwise), and the system continues to grow because more and more women continue to stick out their hands. No matter how hard you try...you can't say "The system MADE me get pregnant!" You were the one responsible equally with your partner. BUT, women turn to the system and say I want ALL of the rights, and I want HIM TO PAY for them.

OK...you got most of what I was saying...I'm sorry if I am one of the only chicks in here that sees a guy's perspective on this. I just think the guy being "blamed/or held responsible" in the original concept is wrong and that's where the system got fucked up from the start. I understand it was a possible sign of the times when maybe women weren't working or getting decent pay (in my opinion still no excuse to hold the man responsible and point the perverbial finger at him alone). But that has changed, a lot and the system has not! Infact, it has only gotten worse! The system has sided with the POS and some stupid social moral that it is "politically correct" to point that finger at the man and only the man????? POS Women scream for "equality" yet they want to play the "it's my body, my right" card and assume no responsibility other than to point the finger at the man???? And a screwed up system allows this???? That is where I scream WTF!!!!!?????

Think about this for a second. I pay 2% poundage (administrative fees) That isn't enough to pay for the system that is in place I don't think. Granted, it could be if you figure enough money moves through the system.

Exactly....there are large sums of money moving through the system and a lot of women are getting assistance and do you know where your support payment goes while they are on that assistace....straight to the Child Support Enforcement Agency! So if a guy pays $400 a month in support and carries insurance on the child the CSEA takes that $400, gives her FREE medical, pays for her babysitting, and cuts her a small amount of $$ a month. They allow her to abuse more agencies other than just CSEA....It's kinda like money laundering to me.....

Minus any finger pointing toward the man or woman....it is the system that has allowed the shit to get out of hand and it is the system that has not kept up with the times.....that's all i was trying to point out....

zap · texaschickeee translator

Kat...we really do agree on the issue at hand. The only way it will be fixes is if guys are given more legal rights in the process. After all...the woman is equally responsible as the man. So why should she have all the rights and he all the bills?

I think however that the system reacts to people. It does not make people be irresponsible in the first place. And the comback to that is that it is not the kids fault that the father or mother was or continues to be irresponsible. I just think if you give guys the right to opt out of support in certain situations (although I am anit-abortion in most all cases...different argument) .....then it will make the woman have some risk in the initial irresponsible act that she currently does not have.

Currently, choice A for the woman is either adopt out, or abort the baby. Choice B is keep the baby and call all the shots and make the guy pay forever as much as he is able to.

The only choice for the guy is to wait and see what the woman decides and then pay through his nose depending on his income if she decides to keep the baby.

It really isn't the system...it is the alocation of rights within it.

Think about this.....domestic violence is very similar. Few people realize that just the threat of violence....either factual or just told to the officer to get the guy in trouble will cause a guy to be arrested for dv with no officer discretion. Flicking someone on the hand for taking a french fry out of your plate IS domestic violence (in this state). Few people believe it is skewed that far out of whack.

My point is that if there are enough 'poor innocent women' out there....the laws will be pushed way out of balance to protect them, and then they learn to abuse and take advantage of the laws. But, it is not PC to say that women have too many rights and priveledges is it.

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

Thank you...Now we are on the same page....A screwed up system backed by the "Politically correct" bandwagon. (politically correct...what a fuck up of words there huh? LOL). And I do agree with the "opt out" for men, but unfortunately I don't think it will get the attention it deserves? Shame too, the system needs an enema!

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

awwwwww, a happy ending..... LOL

zap · texaschickeee translator

eltsacon wrote:

awwwwww, a happy ending..... LOL

*bennyhillslap*

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

eltsacon wrote:

awwwwww, a happy ending..... LOL

Assclown!

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

LOL

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

I think I can see the man’s side in all this, especially since I have a son of dating age whom I know is sexually active. But I also have some personal feelings about it because of my own situation.

When I was young I had one of those wonderful boyfriends who refused to use a condom. I went along with it because I was a complete moron and because I knew he'd leave me if I didn't. When I got pregnant he refused to go with me to the abortion clinic for moral support, so I wound up becoming emotional and walking out.

I was determined that I would never apply for public assistance, but I ended up having a child with two chronic illnesses and the only way I could get him the level of care he needed was to depend on state medical insurance. They went after the father for money, but they never enforced the order so he didn't pay.

I think that for every woman who uses a guy to get pregnant and get welfare there are many women like me who made a mistake when they were young and whose lives will never be the same because of it. Do we deserve to suffer dire emotional, social and financial consequences for 18+ years of our lives because of our lack of judgment? Absolutely! Should the guy who was equally responsible be able to easily walk away because he says he didn‘t want the baby? No, that doesn’t seem right, especially since in unexpected circumstances it will be the public who has to assist the child through their taxes. What about the taxpayers’ right to not have to support a child they had no part in making? Isn’t the father more culpable than they are?

(I have to admit I haven’t yet read all the posts, so excuse me if similar points have already been made.)

-- Edited by entre new at 13:37, 2006-03-11

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

Entre, I'm very sorry to hear of your situation, I can't imagine what you went through raising a child with severe illness and only the state to help???

Opinions/discussion, that's the idea of the suit this thread is about. Getting people to stop and think and have an opinion, discuss it instead of burying their heads in the sand and hope the problems with the system just go away. Men deserve a more fair shake from the system and the women abusing the system need given notice that things need to change. The system needs an enema and maybe this suit and the publicity it will get may help drive that change in some way???

zap · texaschickeee translator

no argument with that here

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

Entre, though I agree with your point I would like to point out that the situation you brought up may look on the surface to be part of the same thing, but in a socialist society that we life in, I don’t believe it is. Follow me here; if your kid didn’t have more then the average sicknesses, would the argument be as valid? I believe it would be valid, but not to the point your statement is trying to justify. Medical insurance provided by the state is an equally fucked up issue that we will avoid here, however it IS a separate issue. Weather you were getting support or not, I’m sure in THAT situation 99.99999% of the med bills would still go to the state. Now, in no way shape or form do I agree with our current med system provided by the state. However, since it is there, I as a taxpayer would much rather see my money go to someone in your situation with your kid then to some spotted owl research, or 5 billion dollar global warming campaign!

I’m not disagreeing with you at all here, it’s just that there are times when a certain situation can shuffle the principle of a point, or program in this case, and make something look better then it is for a completely different reason.

Does anyone else see my point here?

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

KatScratch wrote:

Entre, I'm very sorry to hear of your situation, I can't imagine what you went through raising a child with severe illness and only the state to help???
Thanks, Kat.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

Eltascon, I'm getting a glimpse of what you're saying but not sure exactly. If we ignore my son's special medical needs and say that I just needed help supporting him (which I did periodically), what would have been different? I'm just not sure I'm getting your point.

zap · texaschickeee translator

I think what he is trying to say is that the special medical needs of your child (bless you both) ......are a different, and extraordinary issue outside the every day run of the mill 'screw the guy' child support system, which is what the initial post is about.

The special circumstances in your case, also falls into the government provided health care issue...while they bump into one another...they are separate issues...at least for this discussion.

-- Edited by zap at 19:37, 2006-03-12

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

Thank you, Zap. That was a very good explanation.

I'd just like to say that of all the many single mothers I've known (and we do hang together), I don't know any who have had a "screw the guy" mentality. Believe me, when a woman decides not to abort her child, she herself is, in effect, screwed. Whether the child is healhy or not, she has more difficulties ahead of her than she can ever imagine. She is by no means getting off scot-free and expecting the man to take all the responsibility. She's just asking for a little help from the equally responsibile party who was hopefully an adult and knew full well that having sex can result in a baby.

Maybe more guys should ask, "Do you believe in abortion?" before they participate in sex, and stay far away from women who don't. But I somehow don't think that's going to happen.

zap · texaschickeee translator

<shrug> dunno.... I think its prolly closer to half and half ENew...

It makes sense to me that you, a mother who took responsibility, would find friends who are similar. On the other side of the coin however, there are women who see babies as unconditional love...almost like a pet....and a "pay" check.

One subset of those are women who were in committed relationships....and just decided to hell with it....I want out. The guy can be doing his damndest to make it work. But he has no choice in the matter. Then...she decides to try and punish him as much as possible....spousal support....child support...medical visits....dentist....counseling... and on and on

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

One subset of those are women who were in committed relationships....and just decided to hell with it....I want out. The guy can be doing his damndest to make it work. But he has no choice in the matter. Then...she decides to try and punish him as much as possible....spousal support....child support...medical visits....dentist....counseling... and on and on

Believe me, I hear ya. That's why I used to envy women who were smart enough to get the guy to marry them first.

I have a friend who got an extra job so he could afford to pay the ex, and then she took him to court because if he was making more money she wanted it. She doesn't work at all, because she convinced the judge that if she does her son will commit suicide. So between agencies he's on duty for 16 hours a day, and she's at home with the boyfriend of the month. And the worst of it is that they're divorced because SHE was cheating. I admit that guys don't have it easy either.

zap · texaschickeee translator

no body has it easy in a divorce....especially one after 10 years or so...

The kids get the worst end....

but you know...the gals really seldom get the short end of the stick. After all...they just advertise a week or so and get a NEW guy....while the ex guy has to find the second job to make ends meet now.

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

Zap, yes you nailed it on the head. That is exactly what I was saying. Do you agree? I have to say entre, after reading your post you seem very level headed. You should be proud! You are not the majority from what I have seen day to day.

-- Edited by eltsacon at 23:35, 2006-03-12

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

Hey, I know. Why don't all the screwed-over divorced guys go find nice, screwed-over never-married moms who would probably worship any guy who treated them halfway decently and spent 10 bucks to take them and their kid to McDonald's (which would probably be the best night out they've had in years)?

Is my bitterness showing???

(Thank you Eltascon, for saying I'm level-headed. Nobody ever called me that before.)

zap · texaschickeee translator

<shrug> dunno...but the last time I did that I found the witch I am divorcing now. ...after 12 years.

I guess from a guys point of view....the risk is FAR greater than the gals. And, if you are a nice guy...how the hell do you know this chick didn't go pschyco on her ex?

....and while I am on a soap box and off topic.... GALS....STOP WITH THE FRIGGING GAMES!.... If you like us...SAY SO.

Don't bother dropping hints because we are afraid we'll interpet your vaugue clues wrong. .....if we even NOTICE them in the first place.

</off topic rant off>

-- Edited by zap at 00:44, 2006-03-13

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

And, if you are a nice guy...how the hell do you know this chick didn't go pschyco on her ex?
Huh? You mean if you're dating a single mom?

Sometimes I think guys like psycho women because they're more exciting. I always hear guys complaining about their psycho-bitch exes, but then it turns out that they're still in love with them and hoping to get back together. Like this one guy from another forum was complaining about years of screaming and verbal abuse from his wife, and then he goes, "Oh well, I gotta go mow her lawn now."

I agree with you about the hints.

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

zap wrote: And, if you are a nice guy...how the hell do you know this chick didn't go pschyco on her ex? Huh? You mean if you're dating a single mom? Sometimes I think guys like psycho women because they're more exciting. I always hear guys complaining about their psycho-bitch exes, but then it turns out that they're still in love with them and hoping to get back together. Like this one guy from another forum was complaining about years of screaming and verbal abuse from his wife, and then he goes, "Oh well, I gotta go mow her lawn now." I agree with you about the hints.

Well just like some gals are victims of abuse and can't tear themselves away...the same goes for some guys. On the other hand few guys can play psycho like a gal can with the mental abuse and games. (generally speaking) I know in my case I was doing my damnedest to get her to get help as I seriously think she has a mental condition. Hell...I was even going to counselors alone and they were telling that I was not the problem. <shrug> what can you do?

I was dating a single mom...about 12 years ago. I am in the process of a ponderous divorce now for the past year and a half. (a whole new topic in itself) Being the knight in shining armor type....I have dated a few gals who were single moms. As nice as they all were at first....there was a hanibal underneath. And I am NOT talking about your average issues and problems that EVERYone has either.

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that gals just simply have much more power in relationships because they simply don't give a shit. They have FAR less risk than do guys and they know that. Just as in the original topic....the system is being abused by women who have ALL the rights, make ALL the decisions, and the poor guys (most anyway) are working their asses off to pay ALL the bills. ....makes it kind of hard to date ANYone now doesn't it?

-- Edited by zap at 08:48, 2006-03-13

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

Damn zap! LOL, there are things you think, but don't say out loud. These women with the illusion of mind and power will eat you alive saying things like that. LOL

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

zap wrote:

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that gals just simply have much more power in relationships because they simply don't give a shit. They have FAR less risk than do guys and they know that. Just as in the original topic....the system is being abused by women who have ALL the rights, make ALL the decisions, and the poor guys (most anyway) are working their asses off to pay ALL the bills. ....makes it kind of hard to date ANYone now doesn't it?-- Edited by zap at 08:48, 2006-03-13

........with a comment like that, I can see the dating game being pretty slim your way, hell non-existent infact! More power?????Less risk????? Totally off topic, but fucked up all the same!

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

eltsacon wrote:

Damn zap! LOL, there are things you think, but don't say out loud. These women with the illusion of mind and power will eat you alive saying things like that. LOL

ANY woman would smack him for a comment like that! Even us normal ones don't care for that shit generalization!

zap · texaschickeee translator

KatScratch wrote:

More power?????Less risk????? Totally off topic, but fucked up all the same!

No...not at all off topic....dead ON topic in fact.

and the screwed up part is that people find it acceptible.

Asshole · Resident Troll

This topic has been a great read. Many great points have been made by all and for sure some real issues about the system have been raised. I am truly amazed that an actual intelligable debate has been maintained in a public forum. Good job to all those who have participated.