NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/abortion/inequity/6264

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6264 soc.men:22060 soc.women:22079 talk.abortion:53984 alt.feminism:6770
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!karl
From: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:11:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL
Lines: 117

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>[e-mail] (Karl Denninger) proposed "affirmative
>action" in custody cases.
>
>gf:
>| >However, what I was thinking of was this: insisting that
>| >49% of custody go to men may run into the question of
>| >whether 49% of the men _want_ custody.  Considering the
>| >implacable resistance to paying child support shown here
>| >and elsewhere, I have the idea that a good many men might
>| >not consider your proposal a boon if the luck of the draw
>| >smiled upon them.  Take care: you may be giving ideas to
>| >the devious witches on NOW's General Staff for yet
>| >another plot.
>
>kd:
>| Yeah, we're upset about the idea of child support.
>|
>| Particularly when "support" is grossly in excess of what is required to
>| support and raise a child, and is another name for alimony.
>
>Do you have figures on this?  Over the last twenty years,
>I've known many people paying or receiving child support,
>but in most cases the support was somewhat less than what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it would take to raise a child in roughly the same standard
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of living the parents were used to.  Avoid anecdotal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>evidence, however; we can both supply that, but you are
>making a positive implication that a great injustice is
>going on, and need more than anecdotes to back it up.

You've just made my point for me.

If the NCP is providing "somewhat less than what it would take to raise
....." then what about the other parent who should be providing >half< of
that support?  Are they off the hook?

And what about the >fact< that if you take one household, and split it into
two households, INVARIABLY the two households standard of living will
>decline< dramatically.  This is fact.  When you double fixed costs you're
going to see a precipitous decline in living standard.  No escape is possible
from this fact.

Now what is it that makes the CP (and the child, putatively) entitled to the
old standard of living when it is >physically impossible< to do that by any
other means than impoverishing the NCP?

Further, the LAW in many states is that support is calculated not on >actual<
earnings of the NCP, but >imputed< earnings.  That is, if a NCP loses his
job he STILL owes support money, even though he is not earning ANYTHING at
the time!

Therefore, if you lose your job you are immediately a "dead beat dad" since
its damn difficult to pay support when you don't have an income!  Should you
file for unemployment (which pays only a percentage of your normal wages)
you find that attached immediately for back and current support, which means
that you receive nothing in unemployment benefits (to add insult to
injury taxes accrue on the non-existant income you're not receiving, as they
are not witheld on unemployment checks!)

Sure, the kid goes on getting his money (maybe), although really its Mom who
gets it.  Dad lives on the street, where the feminists claim "he belongs"
since he should support his kids (and his ex-wife, although we don't mention
that) first - even if it means destroying him utterly.

Heh, if men didn't want that fate, perhaps they ought to keep it in their
pants!

>kd:
>| ...
>| Particularly when, should the man complain, she can simply use the "nuclear
>| bomb" of child custody disputes, sexual abuse allegations, and >even if they
>| are false and baseless< walk away scott free -- with the kids -- while the
>| man is ruined not only personally for financially as well.
>
>You've been making this charge as well, but as yet you have
>not offered any evidence that I have seen.  Again, an
>anecdote or two will not do; you are asserting that it is
>a general problem.

It certainly is.  Whether or not a weapon is used is not the point.  It is
still a weapon.  The fact is that today a woman can use this weapon with
impunity and face no punishment, even if the accusation is completely false
and baseless.  In many counties and states it is >impossible< for a woman to
stand trial for a false accusation, as the "experts" claim that there is no
such thing as a provably-false abuse accusation.

I stand by my statement; if I have a nuclear bomb I do not have to use it
or even threaten to for there to be an impact on a negotiation we are
undertaking; your knowledge that I posess it, and can use it if desired,
are enough.

>kd:
>| (Feminists, don't bother saying "but some men have custody".  90% of men in
>| this situation do not have >meaningful< custody or contact, but they do
>| seem to have the bills.)
>|
>| Yeah, men are upset.
>|
>| I suspect that if men had their kids, and were the ones receiving the
>| support checks, you'd hear a lot fewer complaints.
>
>I've seen no evidence of any of this.  Where do you
>get your information?

Read the statistics on the granting of primary physical custody in
divorce cases.  See who gets the kids, and who gets the bills.  The
percentages are right there if you care to do the work for yourself.

All the complaints I've heard, here and in real live, have had to do with
the bills -- not having the kids.

-=-
Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [[phone]]