Quote from Richard

I can never understand [] why men put up with the torment. Some men commit suicide, but I wonder why so few decide not to "go out with a bang". I mean the state can put a beret on my head, a gun in my hand and command me to kill others, few men are not preapred to do the same when their family is challanged.

If the target was more clear cut and obvious, I'm sure more men would attack it violently. But who to attack? Where is the enemy?

It is a social movement, a pervasive political ideology, that stops men from being Men; that attacks their manhood, removes their parental rights, makes them destitute. Those looking for a target look around and cannot find one: instead they look inwards and the best they can do is die noticeably, like Thomas Ball. Most just die quietly in despair.

Who to attack - targets are easy F4J had no problems in finding them.

How about:
The child support agency
CAFCASS psychologists
Members of the state apparAtus (judges)
Key feminists
The ex (ost murders are within the family)
But action against indivduals is messy and can swing public opnion against you, and hte aim is the desturciton or modification of an institution, not an indivdual:

Thus this leaves:
Court houses
CAS/CAFCASS offices

I understand your persecptive, but for example, those who become destitute turn to criminal activitres, or drugs, or reject societal values - become hippies, travellers, etc, they do not usually commit suicide. And this what I dont understand - why do men committ suicide in such circumstances. If they have anger then why not vent it in a heroic way - a battle is a battle, be in a battlefield or a court room.

But to get back to the main theme of this post/thread, who would things look if child support was scarapped totally and each parent really had equal rights and equal custody/residential rights. As Garat said this woud be the fairest solution.

WOuld it work, what problems can one foresee?

I coud imagine that many mother would purposely/spitefully move to the other side of the country so that the father could not have little contact (and his work would often mean he cannot move) and the mother would go to the courts to demand child support as the father is not fulfilling his obligations

Attacking those targets costs you your freedom with very little gained. This really is a war where you must win the hearts of minds of the masses so change can be demanded. Attacking individual targets sometimes does more harm than good.

I resurrect this thread to see if any of our newer members have anything to add.

Or, hopefully, alternative suggestions.

The only fair CS, is NO state dictated CS.. Anyone who thinks otherwise is very short sighted and pretty clueless about what this tax on absent fathers is REALLY about.. Simply trying to offset the huge expenses incurred by the state in wrecking the natural order of the family..

Fathers already triple subsidise the state and mothers, and parents do not "own" or have any "rights" to children which are state property under the law..

I say lock the parents in a room together and don't let them sleep or leave until they can come to satisfactory and permanent solution that is and only in the children's best interest.

It is not the business of those who are NOT the parents though is it? Woman must make do with what the chap wants to give her.. simple..

It is not the business of those who are NOT the parents though is it? Woman must make do with what the chap wants to give her.. simple..

antimisandry.com Positive Solutions. a) Child Maintenance.

Come along now Felix. This little cock-a-doodle strut does not add anything but noise.

Seems to me percy that you want to overcomplicate something that is very simple..

A man and a woman make a child.. Therefore it is their business how they "support" that child, not anyone elses.

There will NEVER be any state imposed perfect solution, or even decent one, that can address the issue that should not have ever been raised in the first place..

The only WORKING solution to the problem, is for the folk concerned to sort it out, since they are the ones who "created it"..

Quote from felixblue

Seems to me percy that you want to overcomplicate something that is very simple..

A man and a woman make a child.. Therefore it is their business how they "support" that child, not anyone elses.

There will NEVER be any state imposed perfect solution, or even decent one, that can address the issue that should not have ever been raised in the first place..

The only WORKING solution to the problem, is for the folk concerned to sort it out, since they are the ones who "created it"..

What solution do you have when one or both parents refuse to cooperate, refuse to help support the child and the child suffers greatly as a result? Are we to shrug our shoulders and pretend that it is not our problem, in the knowledge that when the child grows into an adult (assuming the child survives at all) they will not be able - or willing - to support themselves properly, will likely have long-term medical issues, etc.?

What if a parent is UNABLE to pay for a child, because he has 20 children with 20 different mothers and only a modest income?

What if the parents appear to have things sorted out but later disagree, or one disappears? Is society not going to help the remaining parent and enforce what they agreed?

It is not just the parent's business, it is the child's business, too. If the parents won't look after the child's interest, are we to let it suffer?

The simple solution that works best in the current social reality has been fully explained by that great feminist Germaine Greer. Her solution makes total and absolute sense, is logically sound and in practice will always work better than any messy and unagreedable idea promoted by any of the CS "reformers (who simply want to improve matters for their own "type")..

The state is fully responsible for children under state law and therefore, since the state gains ALL the benefits of children (an investment in the future for the state, to be repaid with interest and tax revenues), the state must bear the burden of the expenses of child rearing when parents cant make an agreement and not be wasting energies and resources chasing folks who cant pay/wont pay..

Guess what, everyone benefits from this approach..

Fathers will no long be incentivised to NOT make money (and therefore work and pay VAST amounst of taxes)..

Huge amounts of acrimonius crap will be instantly removed from the relationship between mums and dads.. And perverse incentives will also be largely chopped too..

We have a system (I know especially of the case in the UK) where one parent is heavily PAID to be a parent, and the other is, well totally shafted in order to recoup the expenses of the state in so many ways..

So many folks can blather on about "children are the responsibility of the parents, not the state.."..

Yeah, right.. IN AN IDEAL WORLD.. And maybe IN A WORLD THAT FOLKS TOSSED AWAY DECADES AGO!

The reality now is far from that as can be clearly seen..

If there is ever an example of how hard feminists sometimes show a much better perspective and understanding of the reality of the situation than the majority of MRA's, then this is it..

But of course, many MRA's, including myself, would agree on one vital thing:-

CS perverseley incentivises break ups of families, and the MOTHER is the one with all the power, control and even in many cases KNOWELDGE of which parent is DEFINATELY the parent and which one "might be"..

No state dictated child support should be paid from one parent to another.

Ever.

Under any circumstances..

It REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE!

And it really works best for all, including, especially, "in the childs best interests"..

What solution do you have when one or both parents refuse to cooperate, refuse to help support the child and the child suffers greatly as a result? Are we to shrug our shoulders and pretend that it is not our problem, in the knowledge that when the child grows into an adult (assuming the child survives at all) they will not be able - or willing - to support themselves properly, will likely have long-term medical issues, etc.?

The child is legally state property and if parents die then what? The child has other family too, and as many folks are aware, children are a VALUABLE ASSET that will always be cared for by SOMEONE.. The christian spirit alone will ensure that..

Parents, often react PREDICTABLY to the shaming of the community, and the knowledge that, perhaps, if they don't start acting like adults, then they, as well as their kids, will suffer..

The state shields parents from that by co-opting the process of dealing with the issues and handing responsibilities to "sort the problem" to stupid state agents and liarwyers etc..

What if a parent is UNABLE to pay for a child, because he has 20 children with 20 different mothers and only a modest income?

See above.. The woman chooses her mate, the state endorses that right in law, she and the state have to deal with the consequences of that decision.. Again, what if any father dies in a road accident or while at work or just from snorting coke etc?
Same situation really..

What if the parents appear to have things sorted out but later disagree, or one disappears? Is society not going to help the remaining parent and enforce what they agreed?

People break contracts all the time. Some contracts cannot be enforced because of a change in circumstances so must be re-considered. Again, what good does hounding a parent do to the extent that he ends up potentially in jail or packs in his job or kills himself etc?
Again, children are the responsibility of the state, in the real world.. So logically parents are parents out of choice right now..

It is not just the parent's business, it is the child's business, too. If the parents won't look after the child's interest, are we to let it suffer?

Many folks will ensure that a child does not suffer if the parents are not doing what parents mostly by nature wish to do..

The religious community, folks who wish to adopt, the state, of course.. Its really, ONLY MONEY.. and the state gets it all back anyway! There is nothing to gain by hounding a poor parent or a deadbeat.. HAS NO ONE OTHER THAN A FEW FOLK IN THE MRM WORKED THAT OUT YET?

CS IS THE MOST DIVISIVE CONCEPT IN THE WHOLE "GENDER WARFARE" ARSENAL OF FILTHY SCAMS FOISTED UPON THE DUMB IGNORANT AND SELFISH PUBLIC BY THE STATE AND FOLKS ARE THINKING IT IS POSSIBLE TO FIX THIS POISON SOMEHOW?

DONT SWALLOW THAT BROWN PILL!

Added after 7 minutes:

There is of course "the universal panacea" to so many sex war based dilemnas..

Again, one that worked DAMNED WELL till feminists persuaded dumb men and women that it was "oppressive"..

Father head ship and full responsibility for his legitimate children..

Kids automatically go to the father if the mother cant afford to raise em..

THAT is one way eh?

If you don't like the statist reality and a solution based on that..

Then go for the "proven" means of ensuring that the maximum number of kids get raised by the most capable parent..

As you should know, most dads would HAPPILY pay the mother to look after the kids if it mean fathers had to give up work or pay for a child minder!

So, capitulate to the State and bear children as 'tribute'.

Bugger that.

[QUOTE=Percy;296806]So, capitulate to the State and bear children as 'tribute'.

Bugger that.[/QUOte] Thing is percy, its too late.. Thats the situation everyone in now in reality as you aught to know..

What better way to add insult to injury for men to be happy to PAY for the expense that the state incurs in maintaining that position..

I am writing to kinda bookmark this. (It will show up on my posts)... very nice... can't wait to dissect it.