Quote from felixblue

Luxuries before essentials.. Is the standard female way.. Luxuries are something a woman needs to choose herself.. Essentials (such as food and clothing for the kids etc..) are something that others are obliged to provide for her after she has spent the money that was supposed to provide for them on luxuries..

Tell me this isn't true anyone?

Actually, I think that's more the way of the world. Credit card debt is epidemic. We all want our toys, and we don't want to wait.

Quote from KellyMac

I don't know how it is where you live, but here in Oregon child support is based mostly on a comparison of income levels and amount of visitation. Believe me, the amount I get doesn't even cover groceries for my son, much less the cost of providing everything else for him. That's not a complaint, just a fact. I have no problem providing for my kids - either financially or morally. That's my job as a parent. Oregon Child Support Program - Child Support Guidelines Calculator

It's not surprising that more men pay, and they pay more. Most mothers have custody, and most fathers earn more than their ex-wives. You can't force a person to earn more than they're motivated to earn. It may not be right, but that's also just a fact. To say that it's some kind of economic discrimination against men is using false logic.

New Zealand also works on earnings and men still earn more than women, on average. But, it's changing and we have stay at home fathers because their wives and girlfriends earn more than them.

$100 as the average, is interesting. I think that's not far off bare minimum.

Y'know, it's funny how things are sooooo different in our personal environments. It would be neat to have a male and a female from the same environment have a conversation online. Well, entertaining for some, lol.

Quote from felixblue

What is the crux of the issue tmots?

You think parents cant make their own arrangements so need the state to do it for them?

Because in your great wisdom and experience you know who the good guys (and girls) are and who the bad ones are?

Despite proffering a blatant pussy pass to someone who has just stated that they are perfectly happy that a father provides nothing but cash to his kids..?

You are a foolish man, like so many who take a womans word that they are "not like the others" even when they clearly demonstrate that they are PROBABLY WORSE!

You are in no position to be calling me foolish asshat. Seriously. You know nothing of me and who I am. Take your BS to someone else that might actually give a shit about it.

TMOTS

So then, statist fool, TPOTS you are pretty well known in the MRM, for a number of things that I wont expand on, but suffice it to say you are no longer an admin here abusing your position as you did so much of when you were.. And you don't give a shit about what I think? Aw! I'm heartbroken! But you sure give a shit what the girlies think and the state and the others you slime round think.. Like your one of those "mr nice guy" MRA's that sits down to take a piss..

What is the crux of the matter then?

Spell it out.. Or have I already done it for you?

Quote from felixblue

Despite proffering a blatant pussy pass to someone who has just stated that they are perfectly happy that a father provides nothing but cash to his kids..?

Let's get one thing perfectly clear, pal, I never said I was happy the only thing he provides is cash. It breaks my heart he refuses to have anything to do with his own children. We don't even know where that asshole lives, but he knows where we live.

What I said was, if that is all he will provide, and that only because the state forces him to, I don't feel bad about it.

You don't know TMOTS, you don't know me, and you're speaking out of turn.

Well if you two are happy (or "dont feel bad" ) about men being forced to pay CS, being jailed for not paying it, and all the other evils of this tax on absent fathers, then what can I say?

Damned ridiculous. Do I need permission to have an opinion on the matter from either of you?

No.

You want to publically slag off your ex KM, thats your business, but this is a mens forum in case you havent noticed and some of us have heard all that sort of thing before..

All anyone knows about you is what you have publicised, and indeed, that is enough for anyone to draw their own conclusions about..

Once again, you misquote me. Try a reading comprehension class. Maybe it will help. And do some research before you write someone off just because they have a vagina.

Not sure how I am misquoting you, to be honest, it doesnt really matter.. We get the gist of how much regard you hold the "asshole" that is your ex in..

How am I writing someone off just because they have a vagina?

Try thinking what I have said..

I am of the belief that folks who think the state should force men to pay child support are fools, not to mention piss-poor MRA's..

There are a lot of thick folk in the MRM, I have often noted, and they prefer to ask the state to sort their shit out for them.. Only, they still moan because the state never does it quite as they would like..

No shit sherlock..

How's about MRA's quit begging to the state for what its never going to get anyway, (or begging for stuff that is what the state wants anyway, and is the worst thing imaginable for normal men and fathers!).. And starts to promote strategies that will enable more and more men to be break free and stop feeding the beast..

I think the problem with the US based MRA's is that your cuntry is far too far gone down the road of mega femistate oppression and youse cant do nothing but grovel to the godvernment.. Writing letters, asking lawyers to speak for youse, all that pussybegging crap because your government is jailing men at a disgustingly high rate for the pettiest of reasons.. Not paying child support being a good example.. How can anyone call themselves a MRA when they support a tax on fathers that is blatantly oppressive, misandric and totally unnecessary?

Well, I and at least a few others on this forum are based in the UK, and although many UK activists have similar bad habits and poor belief systems, we actually do have the ability to do some good direct action against the enemies and civil dissobedience, retreating, etc.. without getting jailed for refusing to asskiss the state..

Since the comments have gone off topic, hehe...

My mind has been wondering lately if people who pay child support (at the higher level) think they are employing the other parent. Its because (1) once people are earning well, they start to question whether the parent taking care of their child is doing a good enough JOB and want full time day to day care where they will pay someone less money, and (2) people are under the impression a single parent group can provide them with caregivers after they've won full time day to day care or are preparing a case to fight for full time day to day care (custody). People say to me, "I will get a single mother" and I say to them, "We don't have single mothers to work for you" and they say, "I am giving them a job" and I say back, "You are better to look for a married woman to care for your children because single mothers have to earn the same as you to care for their children while married mothers can take less pay as they are providing with another person's income".

I also wonder if married men and women think the stay at home parent is their employee? (if this is their story).

Good points julie.. Looking after and raising kids costs money no matter how one cuts it, but in the classic "child support" scenario, one person is being paid to be a parent (which the state would pay them anyway) and the other person is paying that person, while either not having the choice to be involved with the childs life in any other way, or at best, not having a penny of help from anywhere, the state or anyone, for THEIR expenses regards their kids..

Ultimately, kids grow up to be adults, and in no way is it an obligation for them to ever "repay" their parents for whatever sacrifices, financial or otherwise their parents have made in raising them..

But, for sure, the state certainly makes sure it gets a return on its investment..

Its pretty easy to see that parents are effectively doing little more than child minding duties for the state.. The state pretty much sets down what it requires from parents, in order to raise kids to fit into the system..

So, the obscenity of PAYING ONE PARENT while robbing another (and lets be honest, even when the other parent is paying CS it is rarely a realistic amount that comes anywhere near the "true cost" of what the state declares is required..).. Makes for great disharmony and adversity between men and women..

Germaine Greer put forward the best explanation as to why the concept of state dictated child support is a total fail and always will be..

And clearly made the case that since kids are truly the property of the state, not parents, then the state should be taking full responsibility for the financing of child raising.. Or future taxpayer raising..

Quote from felixblue

So then, statist fool, TPOTS you are pretty well known in the MRM, for a number of things that I wont expand on, but suffice it to say you are no longer an admin here abusing your position as you did so much of when you were.. And you don't give a shit about what I think? Aw! I'm heartbroken! But you sure give a shit what the girlies think and the state and the others you slime round think.. Like your one of those "mr nice guy" MRA's that sits down to take a piss..

What is the crux of the matter then?

Spell it out.. Or have I already done it for you?

The crux is rather simple - speaking of the USA - the system is fucking broken beyond repair. Men are fucked royally; consistantly and constantly. BUT, and here is where I as a person with some level of reality between the ears can admit, SOME women DO get the short end too. Not many I admit, but some. The system is fucking broken and liberals, touchy-feely goodie types and feminists broke it.

As for the rest of your verbal diarhea, meh... whatever.

TMOTS

Quote from felixblue

Good points julie.. Looking after and raising kids costs money no matter how one cuts it, but in the classic "child support" scenario, one person is being paid to be a parent (which the state would pay them anyway) and the other person is paying that person, while either not having the choice to be involved with the childs life in any other way, or at best, not having a penny of help from anywhere, the state or anyone, for THEIR expenses regards their kids..

Ummm, the state? I'm going to take the state out of this because (1) parents don't pay their exes child support when the ex is a beneficiary and (2) beneficiaries are considered unemployed and I don't know of any politician who thinks otherwise.

But thanks for your comment. It's good to see I am not the only one seeing this.

Ultimately, kids grow up to be adults, and in no way is it an obligation for them to ever "repay" their parents for whatever sacrifices, financial or otherwise their parents have made in raising them..

This is a big statement. Really, really big, IMO, because it goes against the past which some are still stuck in. I don't have a judgement either way (I've been an orphan for most of my life), only feel many families are not adopting fast enough to this and the older generation have not prepared themselves.

Its pretty easy to see that parents are effectively doing little more than child minding duties for the state..

I wish.

Germaine Greer put forward the best explanation as to why the concept of state dictated child support is a total fail and always will be..

And clearly made the case that since kids are truly the property of the state, not parents, then the state should be taking full responsibility for the financing of child raising.. Or future taxpayer raising..

If possible, I would love a copy of her statement/s.

Thanks again.

Quote from themanonthestreet

KM,

Here is how I see it. So many women make the exact claim you are, many falsely to garner sympathy or what-not, that it is very difficult for folks to believe it. Now I have no reason to think you that you are making this up. We all know (I hope) that there are situations as you stated and I've known you long enough to feel you would not be telling a whopper. But the others... that is what the issue is.

A woman claiming to be on the edge of the abyss because of a deadbeat... Yet she has Bebe clothes, french manicured nails, and eats out almost nightly.... uhm.. Come again? I know such a woman.

Very similar to claims sexual harrassment, rape, and abuse. We all know it happens. It happens too much - wish it didn't. The problem is with the false accusations. False accusations are so prevailent and ignored, it's very difficult to foster sympathy or even belief for that one that could actually be true!

Anecdotally, I know of deadbeats... on both sides. A guy that is still to this day living out of his car, washing at the Y, and working three jobs just to pay his rediculous child support ... oh and survive. But I also know of a guy who is paying 40.00 (US) a month for TWO CHILDREN.

I think that THIS is the crux of the issue...

TMOTS

Even that $40 is too much. If SHE can't afford the kids, she should give them to the father whom she probably kicked out of the family in the first place. Don't worry, the father probably won't expect her to pay and even if he does, the state won't enforce it anyway, there's a pussy pass for that.

Child alimony financially supports single motherhood, why would we endorse it?