Posted on 01/28/2005 1:32:24 PM PST by Lorianne
"I don't understand why women don't aggresively pursue these men."
Why should they? The women collect child support from the state.
Right! I cannot understand how some "clear thinking conservatives" can rationalize their opinion. You do the act, you pay, it's called reponsibility and if your a lazy out of work deadbeat you do community service for minimum wage if that's what it takes. I am totally fed up with people concocting excuses for a problem that is costing us all big time
Then the man should have 50% say about how the child is raised. We all know this isn't the case. The system is unfairly biased toward women - especially women who use children as bargaining chips to extort money from the husband while she shacks up with whoever she wants.
This isn't the typical case. The typical case is where a father is totally overwhelmed by the draconian payments that the court system puts on him. Not only does the man lose the house and have to pay for it, he also has to pay child support that is far in excess to the amount the family would have ever spent on the child.
Also, the children are often poisoned against the father so even though the father may love his children amd pay the court ordered amounts, the children often consider him a the bad guy.
While the father is completely crippled financially and often has to get a roommate to make ends meet, the woman lives on easy street and has as many lovers as she wants. Remember, men aren't always the cause of a divorce.
Faced with these circumstances, is it any surprise that some don't just throw up their hands and flee the situation.
Women exploit the system - lets not lose track of that.
Let's sit back and watch the bitter ex husbands come out of the woodwork to whine about having to pay child support!
I love these threads! GG
I agree absolutely. I advocate for default joint physical custody of children, regardless of marital status of parents. ALL obligations related to child raising and support to be shared 50/50 as the legal default.
Well please try. The suggestion has been made that stripping unmarried fathers of all legal rights and obligations would reduce illegitimacy and single parenthood. I concur. Why should women bother to get and stay married if they are assured support regardless? You are hung up on one aspect here to the exclusion of all others...
You do the act, you pay...
That's the point isn't it? I don't condone pre- or extramarital sex in the least. But it seems the only goal here is to "punish" men and "make them pay" for having done so. But what about women? Are they to be "punished" also? Are they to have any responsibility or accountability for their choices? Are we going to stand up and say that raising children without fathers present is an irresponsible and reckless choice and one for which they have no right to societal support? Apparently the fear that men could maybe, possibly have sex without "paying" seems to trump all other considerations.
I am totally fed up with people concocting excuses for a problem that is costing us all big time.
Sorry, but you are the one concocting excuses. Fatherlessness is indeed a huge problem, but the feel-good approach of chasing "deadbeats" and "jerks" to the end of the earth (even if there isn't anything to collect anyway) for child support is not the solution. It's well documented how children without fathers are more likely to become delinquents, criminals, etc. Now just a thought: what if we make it less, rather than more, possible for women to raise children without fathers present?
Your attitude that it is OK to treat men as mere beasts of burden is disgusting. And if you would actually listen for a second to what these men are saying, you would see that that is what our system does.
That's the way I see it also. A slick con to obtain the DNA for future ID purposes.
Even under the guise of the common good, a hustle is still a hustle.
Someone more conspiracy minded than myself could suggest that the fatherless child / welfare problem was allowed to deteriorate to this point in order for a "solution" such as this to appear acceptable.
4 out of 10 children born out of wedlock? 800,000 with no identifiable father? And they are blaming gays for the breakdown of the traditional family?
Really, I honestly had no idea there were so many men who felt that way.
sundero
Never have so few words summarized problem so eloquently.
I have an old-fashioned solution. Keep your legs crossed.
Congrats! You're first to the pity party!
On a case by case basis, yes, there are instances of injustice. Just like there are some innocent people who end up in jail. The system tries to prevent both occurences. It doesn't happen in all cases, and that's a shame.
However, there is an attitude which prevails among the "usual suspects" that the woman always comes out of a divorce living high on the hog while the dad's wallet is pinched. The day to day responsibility of feeding, clothing, transporting, and caring for the children is ignored because dad is left with less money from his paycheck each month.
Not to mention the point of view that we should "punish" an unmarried woman for being a whore for getting herself pregnant while the man gets of scot-free if he doesn't want the responsibility.
Give me a break.
Huh?
Last time I checked it still takes TWO to create a new human being.
How do you propose to do that?
Ditto for keeping your fly zipped.
Exactly, gays aren't causing 4 out of every ten children to be born out of wedlock. Irresponsible heterosexuals are far more a threat to the traditional family. But politicians and demagogues find it easier to blame gays.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.