Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers

FatherMag.com ^ | August 22, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

AH, HA! So you do believe that fathers and mothers should be able to walk away from their children without any responsibility. You aren't for fathers' right to parent (which includes obligations and benefits). You want the right to walk away from your kids.

You probably didn't know this, but anybody can easily check to see what the post says that you're responding to. As long as you're on the subject, which is a completely different subject, yes I do. Why shouldn't they be able to do that and what business is it of yours?

hahaha You are a discredit to your sex, but then I had already figured that out.

You probably made the mistake of thinking I was human.

[RogerFGay]

I think you're only pretending not to understand that the article is about real life.

[Home By Dark]

=>You probably made the mistake of thinking I was human.

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

Rog, I'm going to go water my yard. Try to pull together a coherent reply to the question of what should fairly be doen--more than dropping the name of the constitution--and I'll check back later to see if you can manage this.

[RogerFGay]

The fact that you're going to water your lawn isn't going to influence my decision to stick to the subject of the thread, something I've already told you several times. It's also not going to alter the reality that I've already responded to the question several times by repeating the solution to the problem exposed in the article.

[balrog666]

Turn custody over to the other parent, of course. Kids deserve to have two parents, and if the parents can't get along and only one parent will be able to spend substantial time with the child, it should be the parent who is more accommodating.

Really? Just sign on the dotted line and no more child support payments? I suspect a few of the men and women screwed over by their ex's or by the courts would do that in a minute. Most probably care about their children and would pursue the needed remedies regardless of the cost. So nothing is changed for most people.

Now, I've answered your question. You haven't answered mine.

I'd put 'em in bankruptcy court where they belong and make them pay off their debts after their living expenses. Of course, that would allow those support payments to be reviewed, modified, overturned, or even reversed based on the real world economics of the situation.

Actually, this solution is just like yours except no one has to sign away their rights to get justice.

[RogerFGay]

Because if you want to have sex, you get the responsibility of providing for the little happy dividend that comes along 9 months later. Why should only one parent be resonsible for your little night of fun and games? I sure hope you've had a vasectomy.

That doesn't even come close to answering the question. There's nothing in it that suggests that you get to decide how other people handle issues involving their families.

[FormerLurker]

Sorry, but this is the same sort of argument that the NEA has been promoting about the AlQuaeda, we just have to understand that they are desperate, and if we had only given them justice, they wouldn't have attacked us.

And I'm sorry, but I can't quite see the relation between the NEA (a leftist teacher's guild), Al'Queda (a terrorist organization responsible for the destruction of WTC), and US Citizens being raped by a corrupt bureacracy. A bureacracy that although claiming to benefit children, many times could care less about them.

I don't think anyone here would feel sorry for Al'Queda if we nuked them off the planet. I do however have empathy for those who have been forced to acts of desperation due to a capricious and arbritary "obligation" that usually has no relation to the amount of money actually needed to support a child, or the ability of the "absent" parent to pay.

If there WERE justice and fairness in relation to the determination of child support, I would not have empathy for those who claim to not be able to pay. And yes, there ARE those who CAN pay that don't. I have no empathy for them either.

[FormerLurker]

I forget was James Beck one of your heros too?

I forget, IS Lon Horiuchi one of your heroes?

[RogerFGay]

What part of the idea that adults get to decide things for themselves don't you understand?

[balrog666]

Never said no more child support payments? In my example, if dad gets custody, mom should pay child support.

What kind of i%$^t are you? Why would people sign away their rights then?

[RogerFGay]

Wone person says one thing, and the other person says another, a third party has to step in.

That's easy to fix without involving government. We'll all just leave you out of the conversation.

Oh, yes, I forgot. You write for FATHERING magazine, and support the right to walk away from your children. What a joke

I'm pretty much against fatherhood being defined as a subordinate element of government bureacracy. I don't see the humor in that.

[RogerFGay]

If there WERE justice and fairness in relation to the determination of child support, I would not have empathy for those who claim to not be able to pay. And yes, there ARE those who CAN pay that don't. I have no empathy for them either.

Early in my research, I got curious about how many "deadbeat dads" there actually are. I carefully surveyed the commentary from politicians and their talking heads to define "deadbeat dad" and then looked at payment statistics. I reakoned that less than one percent of the total ncp population fit the definition.

[Home By Dark]

=>What part of the idea that adults get to decide things for themselves don't you understand?


Probably the part about human children requiring two biological parents, and the recently vanished cultural norm that real men do all they must to take care of their children.

[monday]

"Paying child support and PROUD of it! I love my kid and his mom is cool too."

Good for you. I am courious to know if you would still feel that way if your support payments were more than your monthly income and interest penalties were accrueing at a rate that assures you will be paying essentially everything you earn for the rest of your life?