Dads Represent 85% Of Child Support Providers, Pay More Than Female Payers

[felixblue]

..

.over the past 200 hundred years, governments added lots of other reasons like women and men being completely terrible partners - drunks, addicts, insane (insanity was abused like you can't imagine and lots of people were put in asylums when they shouldn't have been, but that's another thing to research, lol).
....

But please research.... for truth is always better than taking someone's word.

Haha Julie! Makes me laugh because my mother used to tell me over and over how when she was a young woman, young women where routinely locked in the madhouse "just for getting pregnant when they were not married"..

You know something?

40 years later she is wondering when the fucking council estates of the UK, and even beyond, seem to look like a fucking madhouse..

I tell her the best place for women who havent the ability to manage a womb safely, is locked up out of harms way..

Why the hell should they be rewarded with all the trappings of a "family home and life" just for getting pregs irresponsibly?

The state headrapists don't do much "locking up" these days..

And it has decided that many more folk are "insane" (male mostly).. And those that truly are too fuckwitted to behave in a responsible manner or support themselves in any way.. They are allowing the freedom to fuck everyones life over as they spawn fatherless bastards all over the place and get hand outs for it..

Not that I would say that is a bad move, when it is clearly a profitable one for a shrewd business minded slag!

[felixblue]

I think FB needs a cup of tea after that...

I gave up smoking last wednesday.. might have to spark one up after a long run and have a coffee to help me sleep.. Been skyping with TFB again today and he always regnerates my slacking interest in what I often see as a rather futile cause as you may have gathered.. I sometime think I aught to log in on my other id so no one knows I'm online..

[felixblue]

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.

No idea what you are on about really.. But I was just saying that parents/children get supported by the state, one way or another.. In most cases.. Robbing off one parent to give to the other doesnt make matters fair or right when that one is denied the parenting role.. Or even if he isnt "denied" but otherwise cannot be so easily in a position to "support" freely as he would naturally do..

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

Thanks again.

I wish I could find the article as my recollection of it has grown in status somewhat the longer it has been.. But it definately made a good deal of sense.. I remember Percy disagreeing with it.. Which further persuaded me it must have been spot on! (Only kidding Percy!)..

I don't think GG is a really super person, in fact, I don't really know much about her at all and nor does she interest me.. I know she is a "feminist icon".. but I really have no interest in anything she has written other than what has stood out to get my attention. Some of her ideas seem rather whacked out but there is a "perverse" logic to the extrapolated rules of what feminists would like to see.. And when it comes to the DEFINATE rules and laws that the state has imposed.. that such consequences as the basically "good" logic of what GG is getting across is not even regardable as extrapolation.. It is clearly interpolation.. It lies withing the ranges mapped out by the warped and contradicting laws of the state..

Simply put..

FRee men pay more tax (which is the same as child support, to ALL kids) than jailed men, or men who will not work for peanuts..

And Child Support is huge incentive to divorce, cause of strife and male/female adversity etc..

All round, it is too divisive to be regarded as remotely feasible.. Not that they ever can collect enough to "support two homes" anyway in reality..

And that is not even mentioning that it takes away from the pleasure a father can have at GIVING FREELY and WITH CHOICE.. And the THANKS he would probably get from the ex if the state wasnt ROBBING him and making her think she has the "RIGHT" to boot him out and demand cash..

[felixblue]

http://antimisandry.com/general-news...#axzz1zQkrKt57

I dont that that misandric crap from greer is exactly the post I recall, I am sure it is not, but she in her lovely feminist way explains why because women are so perfect and must be free to be utter slags and irresponsible fuckwits in charge of a fadge.. Government should not put the women at risk from terrible men who could be fathers, to protect the slags lies etc from being discovered, and of course because the only rational way of having a proper femistate is where all tax payers support all kids.. not having dumb ineffective bereoucreapcsies chasing men who will be forever in hiding..

[KellyMac]

Why not best interests of the mother or the father? Wouldn't that be discriminatory and wouldn't that all but guarantee a discriminatory ruling? I guess it's ok to discriminate in the favor of a child though because equality under the law is really not meant to be taken literally.

Ummm because the mother and father were both supposedly competent adults who entered into the relationship willingly. Why should the children have to pay for their parents' bad choices? They had no say in the matter at all.

Yes, it is absolutely criminal when non-dangerous parents are kept from their children. It is criminal when children are placed with a dangerous parent. But the person who gets hurt the most and is the most powerless is not the custodial parent and not the non-custodial parent. It is the child. The child loses each and every time. So yeah, the child's interest should come first. To have a different opinion is just plain selfish to put it in the most charitable way possible.

It isn't child alimony, it's child support. Alimony is for the ex. If the ex is using child support irresponsibly, then that's on the ex. But the person who loses the most is still the child. Your attitude is as destructive to the child as the mother bad-mouthing and keeping the child away from the father. Every bit as destructive.

[felixblue]

Ummm because the mother and father were both supposedly competent adults who entered into the relationship willingly. Why should the children have to pay for their parents' bad choices? They had no say in the matter at all.

As a keen bodybuilder in my youth I remember reading an article about how to grow big arms in the gym..

It started off "If you want arms like these, choose your parents wisely.."..

Why should the children have to pay for their parents bad choices? Maybe because thats just a sad fact of life that cant be corrected, and especially not by such a method as moving cash from one parent to another.. Whats that got to do with the price of bread?

And why should parents have to pay for their parent before them's bad choices? And if you think about it, why are these folks keep making bad choices generation after generation?

Probably because they are playing from a limited set of plays that the state provides for them, and giving them unrealistic expectations..

But at the end of the day children cant be treated as if they are so much more important than the folks who made them.. For the reasons garak rightly has pointed out..

Yes, it is absolutely criminal when non-dangerous parents are kept from their children. It is criminal when children are placed with a dangerous parent. But the person who gets hurt the most and is the most powerless is not the custodial parent and not the non-custodial parent. It is the child. The child loses each and every time. So yeah, the child's interest should come first. To have a different opinion is just plain selfish to put it in the most charitable way possible.

It isn't child alimony, it's child support. Alimony is for the ex. If the ex is using child support irresponsibly, then that's on the ex. But the person who loses the most is still the child. Your attitude is as destructive to the child as the mother bad-mouthing and keeping the child away from the father. Every bit as destructive.

The childs interests never come first and never will. What "interests" is the child supposed to have that suits the agenda of those wanting to manipulate this? Because that is the reality of pulling that tired old womans/statists trick.. Men don't know this do they? Sure.. fathers are too damned thick to know whats best for their kids eh?
I can't see any of that being anything other than emotive claims that have no basis to them.. Other than it of course, means the mother has the precious resource that she is claiming to be "protecting the best interests of" while of course ensuring the cash and power are maxed by this.. hahah! We are all supposed to agree that "children are always hurt the most" Really? So why get a divorce woman? As it is indeed women who want divorces and rid of men most.. So they are behind this great hurting of children most of all eh? And of course, the state or whoever always knows who it can call "criminal" when a woman wants it calling that, or dangerous, or whatever.. Like, all these labels and emotive tugs and reasons mean something real?

No, they don't.. They are just opinions, and value judgments and frankly, bollocks..

The reality is, a couple couldnt stay together..

But doing whatever the mother wants and giving the mother cash forced from the father by the state under threat of jail is not going to correct any of that. In fact, it can only make things worse, and seems that everyday it becomes more clear that more and more kids are going to grow up in such a situation, because, it has been incentivised..

Would women behave better and be more likely to stay married if they couldn't so easily get these family splitting incentive schemes to pay out?

Of course they would..

As they do when they need to suddenly learn which side their bread is buttered on..

Pay em for breaking up families like this and this is exactly what you can expect..

Women don't take responsibiliity for their role in breaking up families, they only seek to blame the man and also to get the max cash and state assistance, and victim status.. etc etc..

Every MRA and even ordinary man knows this is the womans default and accepted starting position.. As well as hiding behind the kids.. Classic "shield and weapon" tactics used by mothers in their "protection" as they use the kids to hide behind and get cash for, and a weapon as they use them as tools of manipulation and mental cruelty against their ex's..

Has any bloke ever wondered why these super Female so called MRA's never seem to have husbands/ex's who post on here making their own comments?

[Garak]

Ummm because the mother and father were both supposedly competent adults who entered into the relationship willingly. Why should the children have to pay for their parents' bad choices? They had no say in the matter at all.

Yes, it is absolutely criminal when non-dangerous parents are kept from their children. It is criminal when children are placed with a dangerous parent. But the person who gets hurt the most and is the most powerless is not the custodial parent and not the non-custodial parent. It is the child. The child loses each and every time. So yeah, the child's interest should come first. To have a different opinion is just plain selfish to put it in the most charitable way possible.

It isn't child alimony, it's child support. Alimony is for the ex. If the ex is using child support irresponsibly, then that's on the ex. But the person who loses the most is still the child. Your attitude is as destructive to the child as the mother bad-mouthing and keeping the child away from the father. Every bit as destructive.

So let me see if I understand this, now we are punishing the parents for bringing the child into the world? Those fuckin assholes! Poor kid had no choice ad surely if given the choice the kid would have chosen not to exist at all. If you just meant the bad choices about breaking up, that's usually MOM that does that and the courts reward her for it.

Don't give me this nonsense about how the child suffers the most, give it a fuckin rest. When you start paying child alimony, living in a one bedroom apartment with no furnishings staring at bare walls missing your family then you are qualified to speak that shit. As it is, you're on the other side of the aisle aren't you? You are a collector of child alimony or at the very least, you want to be.

It is child alimony by the way, it is paid to the custodial parent (usually the mother) and she can do with it as she pleases. She need use none of it on the child. She can take that money and go shopping with her friends if she likes.

My attitude is destructive? Yes because not giving her money is just as bad as PAS?

I did need a laugh tonight but damn...you really delivered!

[felixblue]

I think, in my time, one thing has always appeared very clear and obvious to me..

ANYONE who thinks a woman EVER really "puts her kids needs first" ahead of herself.. When she is trotting off for a divorce and its payouts.. Or an abortion clinic appointment, or whatever..

Has not spent much time trying to work out what VALUE kids have to mothers as a way of getting A WOMANS WANTS TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST..

Some women, have kids for pretty much this reason alone.. As can be noted from the amount of time they dump them in child care etc.. Hardly "putting the childrens needs first" eh?

But women always seem to have a way of wording such things that can persuade the average dumbfuck who wants to believe it...

[Garak]

I think, in my time, one thing has always appeared very clear and obvious to me..

ANYONE who thinks a woman EVER really "puts her kids needs first" ahead of herself.. When she is trotting off for a divorce and its payouts.. Or an abortion clinic appointment, or whatever..

Has not spent much time trying to work out what VALUE kids have to mothers as a way of getting A WOMANS WANTS TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST..

Some women, have kids for pretty much this reason alone.. As can be noted from the amount of time they dump them in child care etc.. Hardly "putting the childrens needs first" eh?

But women always seem to have a way of wording such things that can persuade the average dumbfuck who wants to believe it...

They use shaming tactics to prevent people from putting too much thought into the matter and speaking out about it. It's funny that the same women that take a childs fathers away say things like "it's children who suffer the most". What fuckin nerve to be the cause of the very suffering they speak of. Naturally, they blame the father for everything, it's his fault she needed space to "find herself" or whatever excuse her and her friends have dreamed up.

[felixblue]

Its hard to know what is the best thing to do when one find oneself with a woman like this as an "ex".. Its like, suddenly they go 180% against you as a man and alll you have ever done is wrong, you are evil, insane, blah de blah.. Its hard to believe too, but the system also encourages them to behave like this and in many ways deliberately fuels them to be like this.. Sick really.. As in the long term it cant do women any good surely?

I guess I have got used to it over the years.. But still, one has two instincts.. Fight.. and get fucked over and wasted.. or flight, and get regarded as a "deadbeat" who doesnt care..

Neither does a chap any good.. But at least option two increases your chances of surviving and having any hope of reasonable chance of a life worth living, even if you have to have the worlds thickest skin to endure the bullshit and blatant lies, and often your kids having no wish to see your for ages till the figure things out for themselves..

Option one, is ok, as long as you do it bare nuckle, fuck the legal process!

[Garak]

Its hard to know what is the best thing to do when one find oneself with a woman like this as an "ex".. Its like, suddenly they go 180% against you as a man and alll you have ever done is wrong, you are evil, insane, blah de blah.. Its hard to believe too, but the system also encourages them to behave like this and in many ways deliberately fuels them to be like this.. Sick really.. As in the long term it cant do women any good surely?

I guess I have got used to it over the years.. But still, one has two instincts.. Fight.. and get fucked over and wasted.. or flight, and get regarded as a "deadbeat" who doesnt care..

Neither does a chap any good.. But at least option two increases your chances of surviving and having any hope of reasonable chance of a life worth living, even if you have to have the worlds thickest skin to endure the bullshit and blatant lies, and often your kids having no wish to see your for ages till the figure things out for themselves..

Option one, is ok, as long as you do it bare nuckle, fuck the legal process!

Men, especially MRA's, have to learn that men are hardly ever as bad as their ex describes them. Remember, she is telling only her side of the story and probably being loose with the truth. Odds are that she got bored and decided to break up the family, not him, as many women will claim.

If men start to understand these things and stop treating dumped men like shit, that would be much easier for the men who are suffering.

[KellyMac]

When you want to punish your children because you're mad at their mother, you're only thinking of your own best interests. You know kind of like when their mothers keep them from seeing you and tell them you're a piece of shit, they're putting their own best interests first. Try to have some compassion for someone besides yourself.

[Garak]

When you want to punish your children because you're mad at their mother, you're only thinking of your own best interests. You know kind of like when their mothers keep them from seeing you and tell them you're a piece of shit, they're putting their own best interests first. Try to have some compassion for someone besides yourself.

Not giving mommy money =/= punishing the children.

[Popadibs]

This system needs an overhaul. We can't support both an overhaul of this system and the system as it is. We have to choose one or the other. Personally, I want less state involvement.

[felixblue]

Anything the father does that the mother doesnt approve of.. Is not really punishing the children.. Reason being, that the kids have no idea what father is doing.. They know nothing other than what lies and nastiness she is telling them.. Why would they? She is making it impossible for him to have any contact..

Regards the amount or lack of "child support" mother doesnt get from dad.. Kids dont have a clue what that is meant to be either, after all, mum doesnt show them the reciepts, the cash she gets gets spent on whatever mum decides..

Wanting to punish children?

What parent "wants to punish children?"...

Just to annoy the other parent?

Is this what parents are reduced to when the state has become the meta parent and the other two parents have become infantilised?

Sure looks like it!