Saturday, February 25, 2012

The looming abyss

Hawaiian Libertarian explains the source of the palpable sense of anger that fills much of the male portion of the blogosphere:
To not feel anger at the current situation is inhuman.

I first discovered the MRA/MGTOW blogosphere years ago after I watched my Ex-Aunt desert her family, file for divorce, take my Uncle to the cleaners to cavort with a bad boy motorcycle thug. I literally saw the joy, happiness and vitality for life disappear from the faces of my younger cousins. I saw my Uncle left destitute, heart broken and alone.

Before my Ex-Aunt pulled the trigger and destroyed her family, I lived with them for about 3 months. During that time, my nephews and nieces were a pure joy to be around and play with. I used get awoken by laughing and giggling kids, little children waking me up from sleeping on their couch so they could play with me before heading off to school every morning. Those three months were some of the greatest memories of my young adult life for me. My little cousins would come home from school and give me drawings and paintings they had done in their art classes for me. They were such happy little kids.

I moved to the Mainland for a year to work construction. When I returned to attend college at the U of Hawaii, my Ex-Aunt had already filed for divorce and was in the process of taking my Uncle to the cleaners.

The happy little cousins who were in a perpetual state of playful cheerfulness and excitement at the wonders of life when I left Hawaii, had become broken, dour, sad and withdrawn kids when I came back. It was a fucking tragedy. They have since grown up and made families of their own as young adults. But they were forever changed and broken by the destruction of their home by their mother's selfish actions, aided, abetted and encouraged by a system designed specifically to profit off of this misery.

I could not comprehend how such an injustice could be inflicted by the State on a Father who did nothing wrong, how my Ex-Aunt got everything and she was the one who broke her marriage vows and broke up her home. After googling up no-fault divorce in a search for answers, my long journey of gaining understanding and awareness began.
That which cannot continue forever will end. And the present system is too sick, twisted, and intrinsically self-contradictory to survive. There are two probable outcomes. Either the entire system will collapse of its own weight, internal contradictions, and perverse incentives, or men finally get so desperate and angry that they refuse to accept its authority any longer and respond to it with violence.

Imagine if every single time a woman unilaterally filed for no-fault divorce, she and her divorce lawyer were found dead within a week. Imagine if every time the police removed a man from his home on the mere basis of accusations by his wife or girlfriend, the officers responsible and their entire families were found slaughtered? Imagine if every time a family court judge stripped a man of his future income because his wife wanted to live off him rather than with him, that judge was found beheaded in her home?

How long would it take before all of these abominable legal practices came to a shrieking halt. One week? One month?

We obviously have not reached that point. Nor is such violence ideal or to be desired for its own sake. But regardless, we are rapidly approaching the time when such events will appear in the news. To date, the anger and despair felt by those men chewed up by the system has been internalized. Instead of aiming their rage at those responsible for the injustice, they have directed it at themselves, regarding their plight as their own failure rather than the fault of the various responsible parties. It is becoming increasingly obvious, though, that it is the system itself that is sick, that even a good man of honest intent can be rapidly destroyed by it and its twisted incentives that are capable of transforming even the most well-meaning woman into a hellish harpy of familial destruction.

Ironically, immigration and the global jihad of the East has provided the men of the West with the model. The equalitarian system crushes the peaceful but cowers before the violent. So, the logic of human action dictates that it will not be long before despair becomes determination, suicide becomes slaughter, and the purposeful descent into drugs and alcohol is replaced by the vengeful pursuit of retribution. It may seem hard to imagine, and yet, who would have ever imagined that honor killings would be occurring in Texas, in New York, and in the UK in 21st century?

Even today, it is not too late for the system to turn back from the raging abyss that looms before it. Such a return to more traditional justice and more reasonable outcomes is not only possible, it is vastly preferable to the alternative. But I see no signs that the system will depart from its present course, because it is of too much use, and of too much potential use to too many people, men and women alike, to do so. So when the system finally goes one step too far, when a vicious injustice is done to precisely the wrong man at the wrong time, a fearsome and bloody reckoning will begin.

It didn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to be. But it appears increasingly likely anyhow.

86 comments:

Zorro said...

The sooner it turns to carnage, the sooner it heals.

Anonymous said...

Many men are already reacting to the system by refusing to get married. As soon as the rest of them realize how crazy it would be to be shamed into such a precarious position, the system will become irrelevant.

Or it will evolve to make men even more responsible: You dated her for 3 months? that's 3 years worth of alimony.

Sounds insane but somehow possible.

brian said...

For all the feminist bleating about how "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" it's becoming increasingly obvious that the truth is that a man without a woman is still a man.

Women are going to have to get used to being irrelevant if the trends continue.

Of course that still means an abrupt end to western civilization, but at least men don't have to be destroyed, humiliated and castrated first.

Anonymous said...

The majority of men don't play the victim role very well. Nor does the male victim play out very well within our society.

Vox said...

As soon as the rest of them realize how crazy it would be to be shamed into such a precarious position, the system will become irrelevant.

Or mandatory....

Anonymous said...

You paint a bleak, but all-too-likely outcome. If I were somehow back "on the market" for a woman, I'd seriously consider converting to Islam first. And I'm Jewish, yet.

Anonymous said...

"Or mandatory...."

Which would hasten its violent destruction.

Anonymous said...

Meh. So dramatic. The system is not nearly as bad as some men claim. Most men who get divorced aren't innocent victims. They participated in or ignored the failure of their marriage.

M

Riddick said...

Anonymous-M, you clearly lack basic reading comprehension. Nowhere has anyone ever claimed that all men are innocent victims.

Anonymous said...

The issue isn’t that all men are innocent, but rather than all men are treated as if they are guilty, whether they deserve it or not.

A system that punishes the good along with the bad will ultimately leave men with no incentive to be good. Women and white knights would do well to realize this.

jer_the_bear said...

Eighteen years of child support.

Fifteen years with good behaviour.

Soon it will be a simple coin toss.

Heywood Jablome said...

If duch violence broke out against police & judges, do you honestly think the legal system would knuckle under? The institutional left talks a good game about peace, love, nonviolence, & unicorns, but they'll turn loose the SWAT teams & riot police in a heartbeat if threatened.

Then they'll clamp down hard with new laws.

Anonymous said...

Really jer? Prison and murder as opposed to supporting your own children. What An overly dramatic and silly comment. The typical child support payment doesn't even cover half the cost of raising a child. It's hardly worse than a prison term.


M

Stickwick said...

If M is a typical example of the pool from which American men must draw for wives, then no wonder marriage is on the decline. The lack of empathy, the scolding, the equivocating. Most unpleasant.

-----

I don't know anything about the legalities of marriage, but would it be possible for men to include an enforceable agreement in a prenup for the woman to relinquish any claim to custody and alimony in the event of divorce?

Anonymous said...

@Stickwick: Any prenup, no matter how 'ironclad', is only as good as the system that enforces it. Nuff said.

@Heywood: Yes, that might happen, and it would probably work out in the same way that all that increased firepower overseas has reduced antagonism and attacks against American forces... wait, what?

@M: . . . . . whoosh

Anonymous said...

Stickwivk, I reserve empathy for those situations that require it. A man being made to support his own children does not deserve empathy.

Child support and custody cannot be determined by a prenup.

Anonymous said...

Any man raped by the Family Courts would want me on the jury after he offs the ex and her attorney. I've seen good men who've done nothing wrong get hosed because their wives got bored or were just plain evil greedy bitches.

Stickwick said...

A man being made to support his own children does not deserve empathy.

You're completely overlooking the point, as is typical of most women. If a woman can use the courts to remove a man's children from him when he's done nothing wrong -- thereby inflicting harm on the children and the father -- then the woman should have to deal with the consequences herself. If she can't support her children by herself, then she had better stay in the marriage for the benefit of the children, and she can wait to take her sorry ass out of the house when they're all 18 and on their own.

Anonymous said...

"Stickwivk, I reserve empathy for those situations that require it. A man being made to support his own children does not deserve empathy.

Child support and custody cannot be determined by a prenup.

February 25, 2012 11:45 AM"




If they are his children then they shouldn't have been taken away.

Athor Pel

Anonymous said...

Stick wick- There is no logical reason to force people who don't want to stay married to do so. The children must be supported and there is no logical reason that their father shouldn't do so. I understand your point, I just don't think that it is a good one.


M

Anonymous said...

Athor pel - I don't think that fathers should be denied their children. Fathers who want custody should ask for it, or a 50/50 arrangement. However women handle most of the child care in a typical family. It is no surprise to me that women would also be more likely to get custody in the divorce.

Stickwick said...

M, I'm quite willing to accept your point. No one who doesn't want to stay married should have to stay married. Therefore, the default should be for fathers to be awarded 100% custody if the wife initiates the divorce. If she made more money than him prior to the divorce, then she pays child support. In any case, she's free to go her own way and the children will assuredly be supported.

Anonymous said...

Stickwick - Why should the person who initiates divorce lose all custody? Do you have some logical reason for that assertion?

M

Stickwick said...

M, whoever initiates the divorce is intending to break up the family. Unless there are extremely compelling circumstances, such as physical abuse, active addiction, or serial philandering, then intention to destroy the family demonstrates that the divorcer is prioritizing personal whims over maintaining the best possible environment for the children, and is therefore not a fit parent.

In cases where one spouse (most likely the wife) is simply allowing emotions to override good sense, this arrangement deincentivizes divorce and makes it much more likely that the potential divorcer will collaborate with the other spouse to come up with more creative solutions to saving the marriage. There was a poll not long ago that indicated something like 75-80% of people who initiate divorce end up regretting it five years later. Since marriage is so devastating to children and spouses, anything that deincentivizes it is beneficial to everyone.

Anonymous said...

Following the pattern of the Bible, the following should happen in case of divorce:

a) Mother gets the kids.
b) Mother gets no child support or alimony.

Let that sink in a bit. Under those rules, how many women would want to get divorced? If the situation was genuinely bad, a woman would.

However, this won't happen. A Canadian judge recently revealed that the laws are being passed and interpreted for the purpose of "making women equal". And his interpretation of equality is that a woman shall not be dependant on a man.

That would still leave the problem of wives leaving a man who is poor or otherwise below her in sex rank. Time to bring back the penalties against adultery and seduction (alienation of affection)

Anonymous said...

A truly frivolous woman will quickly dump the children off on the dad. By mandating that she gets the kids, it removes all legal strife and struggled in the courts. Dad gets to save his money and energy for getting the new wife, and to be prepared when frivolous woman gives the kids to him so she can get on with her new relationship.

Anonymous said...

The husband says: "Honey, before you leave, I want you to have this cask of Amontillado I've been keeping in the basement. Come down and hold the light for me."

Anonymous said...

"However women handle most of the child care in a typical family. It is no surprise to me that women would also be more likely to get custody in the divorce."

Which actually is a big surprise considering how feminism wanted equal parenting by men. What better way to ask the mother to go pound sand, and let the husband have more time with the child? Or if she is unable to bring home the bacon, she be employed as a nanny by the father? And if she is still in his good books, he might allow her an overnight stay 3 days a week.

"In the very early '70s," Warren Farrell recalls, "NOW leaders like Gloria Steinem used to say that the world needs less mothering and more fathering." But according to Warren Farrell, NOW abandoned that stance in large part for political reasons-to cater to its constituency's view that women should retain custody of their children following divorce if they want to."


Men are to be fathers when the women want them to be. Single mother who thinks a father will be too much competition can write articles without a charge of man-hate, she is just an empowered woman who can earn.

For all your "logical reasons", it is better to quote from this article which ended on the same theme as the current post but will be judged as too misogynistic for saying:

"This woman leaves out the fact that most divorces are filed by women simply for “unhappiness.” She also suggests that men are abandoning their children. She says women are “helpless.”

She’s a liar. She’s scum. I know these types too well. I avoid them at all costs, because after what I’ve been through I’d be highly agitated if I heard this come out of a woman’s mouth and she were standing right in front of me."

Anonymous said...

I think it strange this argument about child support for your own children. If the children are taken away and given to the wife by court order, they're NO LONGER your children! They're hers. DUH!

You can't have it both ways here. And yet we do, in this modern day femutopia.

This is why condoms should be mandatory now.

Anonymous said...

The husband says: "Honey, before you leave, I want you to have this cask of Amontillado I've been keeping in the basement. Come down and hold the light for me."

"For the love of God, hubby!"
"Yes, for the love of God!"

Requiescat In Pace!

Jestin Ernest said...

Or mandatory....

indeed, that is the salient which would force the violent outcome.



but would it be possible for men to include an enforceable agreement in a prenup for the woman to relinquish any claim to custody and alimony in the event of divorce?

you can sign a pre-nup for anything you want. the problem is that courts REGULARLY modify/void them. you can watch this play out almost every time a wealthy man gets divorced.

under the current legal regime, the only reasonable course of action for men is to refuse state sanctioned marriage.

M is too damn stupid too bother with in any case. she's a poster child for why men should refuse marriage.

A man being made to support his own children does not deserve empathy.

and ANY woman who files for "No Fault" divorce does not deserve alimony, child support, custody OR empathy.

DCM said...

"The equalitarian system crushes the peaceful but cowers before the violent." -Vox Day

Alexis de Tocqueville couldn't have said it better.

Daniel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ziH7PfCmOY

Clutch "Regulator"

I see that lantern trimmed low burning in our home.
And though I feel like crying, I swear tonight, I'll cry no more.

And how many times have I prayed
That I would get lost along the way?

Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
The regulator's swinging pendulum.

Come with me and walk the longest mile.

Is his wallet leather? Is his wallet fat?

For not a year later it's got you lying on your back.

You should have closed your windows and got another dog.

You should have chained up all the doors and switched up all the locks.

And how many times have I prayed
The angels would speed me away.

Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
The regulator's swinging pendulum.

Come with me and walk the longest mile.

Spectator said...

ah Vox, you are nothing if not a rosy eyed optimist.

Anonymous said...

Oh men have been freaking out over breakups and murdering their women and children since the beginning of time. Violent men will always fall to violence, for that excuse or another; decent men will maintain themselves no matter what injustices are suffered. Adversity and injustice touch us all, we can be mentally broken by it for life or we can be strong. I have much more faith in good men to weather through this age and this broken system and get it fixed up in civilised ways.

Jestin Ernest said...

I have much more faith in good men to weather through this age and this broken system and get it fixed up in civilised ways.

the Founding Fathers considered it "civilized" to fight a war over ... wait for it ... taxes.

i suppose you consider them 'mentally broken'?

Anonymous said...

@ anon 359

Eh… sure, that’s possible, but very unlikely to happen when…

1. Women make up 54% of voters,

2. Washington only listens to and only cares about women and their concerns, and

3. Women benefit and profit from the inherent injustices of the current system.

Anonymous said...

3. ... or believe they do, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Really jer? Prison and murder as opposed to supporting your own children. What An overly dramatic and silly comment. The typical child support payment doesn't even cover half the cost of raising a child. It's hardly worse than a prison term.


M




Why do you assume the child is actually his? If she cheated on him it may not actually be his kids; yet he is still forced to pay. And there is no tort to recover the money from her after that is found out, and actually in most states he cannot even stop paying after finding that out.

Matthew Walker said...

Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? This system enables its perceived allies -- supporters, enemies of its enemies -- and crushes its perceived enemies, violent or not.

The folks running the show would dearly love some juicy "crazy white tea party male" killings to demagogue. That's the spin they'd use. "Deadly White Rage!" "What Drives White Male Fear of Women? Racism, or Sexual Inadequacy?"

It would rapidly become a justification for depriving divorced men of even more rights. And the public that submissively tolerates the TSA would breathe a sigh of relief that the "threat" was being dealt with. We would lose, disastrously. We don't have anywhere near enough public support. We will never have ANY appreciable female support. That's 54% of voters, as noted above. Most men think they're doing just fine, so far.

They hate us, they control the media and the government, and they feel invulnerable. They pretty much are.

I care as much about judges' and cops' lives as they do about mine: Zero. I just don't care to start a fight we can't win.

Anonymous said...

"The folks running the show would dearly love some juicy "crazy white tea party male" killings to demagogue. That's the spin they'd use. "Deadly White Rage!" "What Drives White Male Fear of Women? Racism, or Sexual Inadequacy?" "

We've already had this recently. A white male with a tea party sticker on his truck gunned down a beauty parlor trying to kill his ex-wife over custody of his son. Story dropped the media the minute it was realized it was custody killing. The media already has a full tilt coverup program going on to keep such cases out of the news.

They don't want the killings over custody publicized. I don't know why for sure but here's my guess: The more women hear about such killings the less likely they are to divorce and grab the kids in a hostile manner. Women freak out about any publicized danger. Got to keep the movement going by hiding the truth.

jer_the_bear said...

"Really jer? Prison and murder as opposed to supporting your own children. What An overly dramatic and silly comment. The typical child support payment doesn't even cover half the cost of raising a child. It's hardly worse than a prison term."

@M -

Typical feminist belittling.

What is supported is my ex inflicting a sufficient state of Stockholm Syndrome on my now-teenage children that they hate me without cause.

What is supported is a surreal matrix where I have had to restrict my own freedom of speech because of the outlandish things my ex might say if anything remotely negative is relayed to her, even in passing, by my kids.

Silly and dramatic?? Don't be such an idiot. It's hardly just about money.

My smart, beautiful son and daughter were used as sock-puppets to torture me. My son turned 18 this month and didn't even acknowledge my birthday greetings. Last September we were buddies, now he thinks I'm a wife-beater. Just the latest drama. They've blocked me on Facebook and the only communication I've had in the past four months is a terse email reminder that the ex is out of postdated cheques.

Drip. Drip. Drip. I will judge no man whose endurance runs out.

My statement is made well after the fact. It is not a calculation I have personally made, I am a Christian and will leave vengeance to my Mighty One. And my 18 years are almost over in any case.

You think Tom Ball set himself on fire because of a money issue?

F>>>ing Troll.

Anonymous said...

@ Jestin Ernest:

Maybe it's a sick and twisted society that DOESN'T shoot corrupt judges and psycho exes.

These fools won't know what hit them when the Caliphate really gets rolling.

Jestin Ernest said...

Maybe it's a sick and twisted society that DOESN'T shoot corrupt judges and psycho exes.

it's my ( wholly unsupported ) opinion that this is likely the reason why dueling existed. it permitted society an organized way to purge high functioning sociopaths. it's common for sociopaths/borderlines/bipolars/narcissistics to have great difficulty understanding when and how they are giving offense. they fail to grasp the rage and anger that others feel at their betrayals. they just consider anger a display mechanism which often generates behaviors they desire.

dueling not merely removed them from society, it also inhibited their reproduction.

and given the fascination many women have for men with socio- pathic personalities, you can see how forcefully deleting them from the gene pool could be highly beneficial from a societal perspective.

Soga said...

Jer, I'll be praying for you and for your family to be united -- at least, you with your kids.

jer_the_bear said...

Thank you, Soga, very much indeed.

Ghost said...

M,
I know you're trolling and just talking out of your ignorant ass, so this reply is for the people who read your bs and hold any stock in it:

1) child support does in fact cover more than half of children's expenses. It doesn't, however, cover your rent, your clothes, your presents that you want to buy for your new victim, uh, I mean, mate. If you're going to come on here and say that it takes 2,000 a month to feed and clothe 2 children (I was paying 900 a month, so if that's "not even half," then 2,000 should be your minimum), then show your work. Because I have custody now, and that twat hasn't sent so much as dime one, and I'm still able to support them. Amazing, innit?

2) at no point during you insane ramblings do you ever say that it's the MOTHER's responsibility as well. Only the fathers. Well, that's a fine how do ya do. She's only responsible for them for the 9 months where she's contemplating getting an abortion anyway. The mother isn't responsible for supporting her children. Her only responsibility is cashing the check.

3) you would know this if you were actually intelligent, and not just "I saw a mean deadbeat dad in an after school special, once" way, but statistically, more women fail to support their children than men. Let me say that again, more women abandon their children and never pay a damn cent than men. You feel no empathy for a man who is forced to support his children? That's fine. I not only feel no empathy for women in the same boat, I laugh at the man who thinks she'll keep paying.

4) I know there's a word for someone who is misogynistic towards men, but the only thing that's coming to mind is "castrating frigid bitch," but yeah, you're one of those. If the mother can't support the children on her own, then she shouldn't be awarded full custody. If dad dies in a car accident or from a self inflicted gun shot to the head, how are you going to support them?

5) your feminist propaganda has turned motherhood on its ear. As more and more of you abandon motherhood and wifedom, it will be increasingly obvious that men can and will do just fine as parents, in most cases, far better than the mothers would. A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, but a little boy without a castrating frigid bitch of a mom is like a less messed up little boy with a shot at happiness.

6) when it comes to the "18 years of child support or 15 years with good behavior" argument, and your ridiculous "men should have to pay!!" rebuttal, um, have you never heard of Roe v Wade? Women make that same decision every damn day, except, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO JAIL FOR MURDER, so yeah, they've got it a little easier. How about we give men the ability to abort as well? That's one way to prevent crazy man from taking the 15 years option; let him sign a piece of paper saying, "I have aborted the clump of cells growing in the uterus of the whore I knocked up. It is dead to me, so I am not responsible for it," and badabing, equal rights. I bet you feel empathy for the poor scared girl who is out of options when she walks into the planned parenthood. Bet you got plenty of empathy for that killer.

Desert Cat said...

"Nor is such violence ideal or to be desired for its own sake."

Perhaps it is admitting too much that I felt the viking rising in me at your described scenario...

The nearly overwhelming drive/desire in many of us of the BETA persuasion to create and lead a strong, healthy, happy traditional nuclear family, coupled with the knowledge that the law and the culture is starkly opposed to this outcome is certainly enough to fuel a simmering rage.

The only answer on a personal level* is Game. Ruthless, unrelenting Game. And by that I also mean inner Game ruthlessly applied, like a crucible in a furnace burning, burning away the dross of gamma and low-delta impulses. Yes, even men have fairytale fantasies of mutually-fulfilling emotional paradises. They are fatally dangerous in today's world and must be ruthlessly purged.

I really envy men like Roissy. Not so much for their ability to game women for their own ends, but for their apparent lack of a sense of profound loss that the BETA alternative is no longer a low-risk viable option. Sure he acknowledges it, but his response is "F#ck it, I'll just surf this wave of clueless poon until the destruction of western civilization is finally upon us."

*for me anyway. I like sex way too much to go MGTOW.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Nor is such violence ideal or to be desired for its own sake.

No, not for its own sake. :)

Anonymous said...

Ghost -

1. I am speaking of the typical child support payment based on national averages, not on your personal situation. The typical child support payment does not cover half the costs of raising a child. Feel free to do some research on that.The child's portion of the rent and utilities should be included in the calculations as they are expenses related to raising a child. Whether or not $900 is sufficient for 2 children depends on a lot of different factors, so I'm not going to bother with your example, snowflake.

2. I didn't say that it was the mother's responsibility because mother's aren't here whining about supporting their own children. If the mother has custody then obviously she is contributing to the support of the child, because as I said previously, the typical child support payment doesn't even cover half the cost.

3. I realize that a higher percentage of non custodial mothers fail to support their children. When you consider the relatively small number of mothers who don't have custody and the fact that women who don't have custody of their children tend to have serious issues that make them unfit parents (addiction, mental health issues ect) it is not surprising to me that this is the case. However there are still more deadbeat dads than deadbeat moms out there.

4. If the father dies in a car accident then he won't be supporting the children no matter who has custody. What is your point? Being able to support children independently should have nothing to do with who gets custody. Most parents work because neither the mother or the father can afford to support their kids independently.

Maybe your comments would make more sense if you focused more on explaining your point and less on insulting me. If you are going to focus on the insults then at least make them entertaining.

5. What feminist propaganda have I posted? Point it out.

6. Women having the legal right to an abortion has nothing to do with child support. Both men and women are legally obligated to support any children born to them. Abortion has nothing to do with it.



M

Anonymous said...

Jer the bear -

I am having a hard time imaging how a wife convinced teenaged children of normal intelligence that a good father who didn't physically assault his wife in any way is a wife beater to be hated.

Too bad we can't hear both sides of the story here. If your situation is as you described it then I do feel sorry for you.

Men really do need to be careful about what kind of woman they pick to be their wife and the mother of their children. If you pick badly then it will be a disaster for all involved.

I hope that your relationship with your children can be restored one day.

M

Jestin Ernest said...

I am having a hard time imaging how a wife convinced teenaged children of normal intelligence that a good father who didn't physically assault his wife in any way is a wife beater to be hated.


you ever hear of Stockholm syndrome? Parental Alienation Syndrome is a variation on that mechanism.

your credulousness is [ not ] curiously self serving.

Ghost said...

1. I am speaking of the typical child support payment based on national averages, not on your personal situation...

you're problem lies with your understanding of the system. Or rather, a lack there of. But more on that in a minute. As it stands now, if the mother doesn't have gainful employment, she is not expected to do so. The father is expected to fully support the children. That's not snowflaking, that's the system.

2. I didn't say that it was the mother's responsibility because mother's aren't here whining about supporting their own children...

No, you just said its the fathers responsibility. If you meant both parents should be responsible, maybe you should have said that. But you didn't, so that's the statement causes me to say, "at no point do you say that it's the mothers responsibility." because you didn't. And in failing to do so, you implied that they had no responsibility.

3. I realize that a higher percentage of non custodial mothers fail to support their children...

I see. So there are many different factors that go into why women don't pay child support, but there's just a shitton of deadbeat loser dads. None of those deadbeats could possibly be coping with addiction or mental illness or any of the other excuses you come up with for shitty moms. But you also, most likely unknowingly, prove your inept knowledge of the corruption in the system. If the system was fair and equal, you would see fathers getting custody of their children 50% of the time. No, if we want custody, we have to not only prove that we can care for our children, and that we can do it better, we have to prove that mom is a pill popping lunatic who is a danger to not only her own children, but to society. What does mom have to do to get custody? File for divorce. All things being equal, going by the statistics, there would be more deadbeat moms than deadbeat dads.

4. If the father dies in a car accident then he won't be supporting the children no matter who has custody...

my point is, if you can't provide financially for your children, why shouldn't they live primarily with the parent who can? If both parents are good parents, then yes, the financial question is the next that should be decided. Both parents want custody? Great. Which one of you can afford it? If you as a single mother, are depending on your ex's paycheck to support your children, if he dies, how would you support your children? Besides, a single mother would be more able to find gainful employment if she didn't also have the burden of finding a babysitter.

Maybe your comments would make more sense if you focused more on explaining your point and less on insulting me. If you are going to focus on the insults then at least make them entertaining.

castrating frigid bitch isn't entertaining enough for you? More proof that women are impossible to please.

5. What feminist propaganda have I posted? Point it out.

Meh. So dramatic. The system is not nearly as bad as some men claim. Most men who get divorced aren't innocent victims. They participated in or ignored the failure of their marriage.

M
February 25, 2012 8:33 AM

Feminist propaganda.


6. Women having the legal right to an abortion has nothing to do with child support...

if abortion has nothing to do with not wanting the burden of raising a child, then I think you missed the biology class that explained what happens during an abortion. The fact that men don't have the option to terminate their offspring and are forced to financially support them for at least 18 years, while mothers have the option of aborting and continuing on with their lives. Yup, nothing messed up here. And definitely not as bad most men make it out to be. Please.

Anonymous said...

Ghost -

I worked with the family courts for a few years. I have a pretty good understanding of the system. It is certainly not perfect, but I haven't witnessed the gross unfairness that you complain about. I'm not saying that it never happens, but that it isn't as common as some men would have me believe.

Most of the time fathers don't even bother to request full custody of their children and they rarely request 50/50. As I said earlier women tend to be the primary caretakers of children in our society and I think that most men and women want it that way. When women aren't the primary caretakers it is usually because they have some major issues. I'm not surprised that these women would be less likely to pay than the average father.

I see. So there are many different factors that go into why women don't pay child support, but there's just a shitton of deadbeat loser dads.
Sometimes the fathers have serious issues as well or are simply unemployed. However often they simply resent having to pay support to a woman who has decided to move on without them and want to punish her by withholding the money. Resentment an anger over the divorce (sometimes justifiable) are common reasons to avoid paying.


my point is, if you can't provide financially for your children, why shouldn't they live primarily with the parent who can?


Being able to provide financially doesn't necessarily mean that you are the best parent for the day to day raising of the children. Often the career that allows you to provide well has a much more demanding schedule than one that doesn't. Both parents are obligated to provide anyway, so who the money is coming from is irrelevant to who should have custody.

A wise woman has insurance on the man that her children are financially dependent upon, and a good father would want that insurance as well. Without it if he dies then the children will struggle financially no matter who they were living with at the time.
castrating frigid bitch isn't entertaining enough for you? More proof that women are impossible to please.

Better. Keep trying and I'm sure that you'll get it eventually.
if abortion has nothing to do with not wanting the burden of raising a child
I understand that men don't have the right to opt out of having a child after pregnancy. They also can't choose to have a child that woman wants aborted. Biologically that is a situation that can never be made equal. It is however fair. I'm not going to get into an abortion debate but I want you know that I see your point there.

I just don't think that a woman's right to an abortion has anything to do with a mother and father's obligation to support any children that are born.

M

Ghost said...

I worked with the family courts for a few years. I have a pretty good understanding of the system. It is certainly not perfect, but I haven't witnessed the gross unfairness that you complain about...

I see. You're not only part of the problem, but you ask that we accept your anecdotal evidence of what you experienced while you were destroying families, while calling anyone else's anecdotal evidence snowflaking. God, you're precious. Men don't ask for full custody most of the time because, like I said, we would have to prove that mom is a homicidal maniac who might be giving your children their "bathway to heaven." So men will usually try for 50, and usually end up getting screwed down to 25%, if that. You never saw the evidence that it wasn't working because you never bothered to look.

Sometimes the fathers have serious issues as well or are simply unemployed. However often they simply resent having to pay support to a woman who has decided to move on without them and want to punish her by withholding the money. Resentment an anger over the divorce (sometimes justifiable) are common reasons to avoid paying.

43% of women who are ordered to pay support pay nothing. That's not even counting the number that are behind. Unless you're saying that half of all mothers are heroin using chainsaw murderers, then you have to admit that all that bullshit feminist propaganda about evil dickhead deadbeat dads would most certainly apply to women. By the way, only 32% of dads fit your criteria. You must believe there are a LOT of crazy women out there. Can't say I disagree with you there.

Being able to provide financially doesn't necessarily mean that you are the best parent for the day to day raising of the children.

which is why I specifically stated that they're both good parents. Why should a woman's possession of a vagina entitle her to unquestioned custody? If they are both good parents, then the next logical criteria is not, "which one of you has a vagina?" it's "which one of you can provide for your child?"

A wise woman has insurance on the man that her children are financially dependent upon, and a good father would want that insurance as well. Without it if he dies then the children will struggle financially no matter who they were living with at the time.

and a wise man will leave that insurance money in a trust for his kids, because he knows his ex will spend it before he is in the ground. You're still missing the point. But now it's obviously intentional.

Better. Keep trying and I'm sure that you'll get it eventually.

mendoucheous twatwaffle. How's that?

I understand that men don't have the right to opt out of having a child after pregnancy. They also can't choose to have a child that woman wants aborted...

it's nice that you try to wiggle your way out of that one, but they are directly related. You ever see the movie knocked up? One night stand, he has no say in the matter, and he's stuck for 18 years. You don't think that with almost half the mothers not paying support, that faced with the prospect of losing possession of their meal ticket will cause abortion rates to skyrocket? Again, your ignorance is astounding.

Your basic conclusions even reek of misogyny. Either women are way more likely to be batshit insane or chemically addicted, or you think that the majority of women would rather take revenge on their divorcing spouse than support their children. Numbers don't lie. 47% compared to 32%. I'm more than willing to admit that a third of the men on this planet are too functionally retarded to care for a child and/or dickheaded enough to not care about their offspring. Are you willing to admit that about half of mothers?

IndyGuy77 said...

It stuns me that so many women do that.

I'd love to see stats on how many women get locked up in debtors' prison for their non-payment vs. men.

I'd guess those stats aren't so readily available.

Anonymous said...

Makes sense though that someone who works for the system would have an interest in denying the anti-male bias that exists there.

No reason to saw off the limb you're sitting on, huh?

Anonymous said...

M(issing the point) wrote: I worked with the family courts for a few years. I have a pretty good understanding of the system.

It all makes sense now. Furthermore, she is also arguing and evading from a standpoint of (un)conscious fear, as if men started holding the system and its cogs responsible, she and her ilk would be among the first to be lined up and shot.

Ghost said...

Indyguy,
Its been my observation that women don't end up in debtors prison because they just sign over their rights. Which brings me back to my point about abortion...

Anonymous said...

The Founding Fathers were primitives and we can do better and we will.

I LOVE MEN. And I know a number of very hurt, bitter men who have been screwed by the courts, and who have fantasized about murdering lawyers and so on, who have been driven, out of character for themselves, to other milder violent acts during divorces. I am beyond disgusted how nonexistent advocacy for father's rights seems to be. I will talk down and help any man I know to weather this and not entertain the dangerous thoughts that lead to very stupid actions.

Also there is always enough blame to go around. I have not known an honest, self aware, insightful man, no matter how evil his ex may be, who cannot look in the mirror and see his own part in the failure of the relationship. When a man is strong enough to face up to this, it also helps ameliorate his rage, bitterness, and pain.

Life goes on. There's a better way to get through and influence your kids for good.

Jestin Ernest said...

The Founding Fathers were primitives and we can do better and we will.

i would say that you're an effete, effeminate, arrogant ponce with no understanding of the institutions that were required to make the US a great nation nor the reasons why the things that were done were necessary. the obnoxious little bureaucrats who have presided over the demise of all great empires were just like you.

but i don't think you're a man, anonymous.

Ghost said...

Those primitives did the best they could with the circumstances presented to them. They knew it wasn't perfect, which is why they said they wanted to create a "more perfect" union. They also knew that it was doomed to fail, and that those who would rebuild it (us) would see what they had tried to do: set up equal opportunity for all. Just a chance. That's all we need for this country to be great again.

The tree of liberty is getting thirsty...

jer_the_bear said...

@M -

I paid support before we even had a legal separation. My children needed a place to sleep and food to eat. There is no lack of accountability on my part.

Yeah, I married the wrong woman and apart from my children I would have regarded it as a tragic waste of ten years of my life.

I don't hate her, I think she's nuts. I despise a system that would give a proven cheater (and occasional crack user) two little kids that didn't want to go back home after weekends. I had no say, and I had JOINT CUSTODY!

But with my money (I didn't mention the alimony I had to pay for three years until she remarried) she could spoil them and I correspondingly couldn't even take them to the movies once in a while.

Sure, I was no day at Disneyland sometimes. But thirteen years on, I still have all of my original friends* and she has none of hers.

(*save, of course, the ones she screwed)

You saw this kind of thing go down first-hand, and we have to explain, nay justify to you why we're so goddamn angry?

No soup for you.

Anonymous said...

I see. You're not only part of the problem,

Yup. It's my fault that people screwed up their marriages and got divorced. I am that powerful.

43% of women who are ordered to pay support pay nothing. That's not even counting the number that are behind. Unless you're saying that half of all mothers are heroin using chainsaw murderers, then you have to admit that all that bullshit feminist propaganda about evil dickhead deadbeat dads would most certainly apply to women. By the way, only 32% of dads fit your criteria. You must believe there are a LOT of crazy women out there. Can't say I disagree with you there.

There are some serious flaws in your argument. 43% of all mothers ordered to pay child support is no where near half of all mothers. Most mothers are married, not divorced or single, and most of them have custody and no child support order. The actual number of women who don't pay their child support is miniscule compared to the number of men who don't pay.

which is why I specifically stated that they're both good parents. Why should a woman's possession of a vagina entitle her to unquestioned custody? If they are both good parents, then the next logical criteria is not, "which one of you has a vagina?" it's "which one of you can provide for your child?"

I think that you are the one missing the point. Women don't get custody simply because they have a vagina. They get custody because they tend to do most of the child care during the marriage, and because fathers rarely request it. Who makes more money is irrelevant. Making more money doesn't make you a better parent, and often it means that you have less time for hands on parenting.

it's nice that you try to wiggle your way out of that one, but they are directly related. You ever see the movie knocked up? One night stand, he has no say in the matter, and he's stuck for 18 years. You don't think that with almost half the mothers not paying support, that faced with the prospect of losing possession of their meal ticket will cause abortion rates to skyrocket? Again, your ignorance is astounding.

Your basic conclusions even reek of misogyny. Either women are way more likely to be batshit insane or chemically addicted, or you think that the majority of women would rather take revenge on their divorcing spouse than support their children. Numbers don't lie. 47% compared to 32%. I'm more than willing to admit that a third of the men on this planet are too functionally retarded to care for a child and/or dickheaded enough to not care about their offspring. Are you willing to admit that about half of mothers?


You know I think that everyone should be required to take at least one statistics class in high school or college. It would keep people from making mistakes like this one.

mendoucheous twatwaffle. How's that?

Hilarious.

M

Anonymous said...

Jer the bear -
The family court system is not your problem. The problem is that you married a "nut" and had children with her and then expected the (flawed) court system to save you from the consequences of your bad choices. If your children suffer it is because of that mistake and you should be most angry with yourself.

M

SarahsDaughter said...

Yes, M, you are correct, 43% /= 50% It doesn't. I didn't even take a statistics class and I can see those two numbers are not equal. You're right, you're absolutely right. You're still an asshole, but you are RIGHT.

Do mothers who are awarded custody of their children not work? Has that been your experience? With the exception of those on welfare, I don't know any single mothers that stay at home with their children. So we get back to who can properly care for the children. The primary income earning father who works, or the working mother awarded support? My bet is on the father. Personal anecdote, I succeeded far better academically and socially once my mother gave me back to my father.

Your discounting of these men's experiences has gotten very disgusting. In Jer's case, the flawed court system awarded the cheating, occasional crack using ex wife placement of the kids. And he should be most angry with himself?

As disheartening as it is, I have to agree that the best course of action for men is to not marry, if what you have to choose from are the likes of M.

R. Bradley Andrews said...

M, why can't you put "M" in your name instead of Anonymous? You don't even have to login.

Not that your arguments are all that compelling.

I would note that I grew up with a divorced mom as my primary caregiver. I have definitely shifted my own views on responsibility. My father had huge flaws, but I no longer believe he was the reason the marriage failed.

He did faithfully pay his child support, though it was far less than today's absurd amounts.

The system is very messed up and you try to claim it is working fine. Yeah, right.

indyguy77@work said...

"Indyguy,
Its been my observation that women don't end up in debtors prison because they just sign over their rights. Which brings me back to my point about abortion..."

I'd bet it's because that relieves them of their responsibilities and most men aren't going to be heartless enough to not allow them to visit their kids often if she wishes to do so.

Now how many women would do the exact same with the positions reversed?

"Let that bastard off the hook AND let him love his own kids? Oh HELL NO!"

Ghost said...

Yup. It's my fault that people screwed up their marriages and got divorced. I am that powerful.

Not that powerful, just given that power. And divorce isn't the problem, it's the custody of the children we're talking about. There can be custody fights without a nasty divorce. And, you can have an amicable, mutual divorce that gets dragged through the shitpile system by people like you in the child support services.

There are some serious flaws in your argument...

and again, most mothers have custody because it is automatically awarded to them. Again, I ask, what, besides filing for divorce or even just giving birth (in the cases of unwed mothers) do mothers have to do to get full custody? Answer that and stay fashionable. Well, you can't answer that, or you would have the first time. All things being equal, and fathers getting custody 50% of the time, you would see far more women not paying than men. And I'm sure that all those men who just don't want to pay the mean system don't have ex's who are actively gaming the system (like not reporting child support paid, lying to get on govt asst, and my personal favorite, withholding the children). Nope they're all just bad men who shouldn't be trusted. And Jer, it's YOUR fault you married a crazy person and the system awarded her everything. Your fault your fault your fault! Lalalala I can't hear you with my fingers in my ears!

I think that you are the one missing the point...

Now, follow along, IF THEY ARE BOTH GOOD PARENTS, THEN MONEY IS THE ONLY LOGIC DECIDER. You seem to think that if the man gets custody because he makes more, then mom will never see the kids (and maybe because you helped women do exactly that for years, so you assume it goes both ways), but all I'm saying is, the parent most fit to provide for the child should get custody. You can't feed your children on hugs and you can't shelter them with smiles. We've established that they are both good parents, and even in this nonexistent scenario, you can't even concede that, duh, yes, money is important. What you fail to understand, is that almost half of the mothers who don't have custody pay nothing in child support. You know who doesn't get added in to this equation? The real pieces of merde like my ex, who, when faced with a crippling 250 a month for the same two kids it cost me 900 a month to support (maybe the women are bringing down the national average making "child support not even cover half," because every man with a child I've ever met is paying out the nose), she signed over her rights and no longer owes anything. And the fact that I can name 5 women off the top of my head who have done this, while only one man I know did (and he made that mistake 30 years ago and has spent every year since making up for it) speaks to the statistics that, if men were given custody fairly, you would see more deadbeat moms than deadbeat dads.

You keep saying things like "most men don't even ask for half," then tell me I need to take a statistics class. Well, you ignorant monkey diddler, most men are still married or have custody. You're only talking about divorced men. Therefore, you're wrong, completely and totally. The good fathers, who you help screw out of money or custody (not sure which part of the filth you were a part of) who "only go for 50%..." ya know, forget that argument: how many mothers did you see use the system to get full custody because they wanted revenge? How many did you see use their kids as pawns, or try to screw that bastard out of extra money? My ex got more child support out of me because she remarried and had another kid, and well, that kid costs something, too. No, your system isn't as bad to men. Men are just big complainey pants who never take care of their kids.

Continued in next comment.

Ghost said...

Even still, you don't expect mom to work. She should just be home, barefoot and pregnant, rearing them childrens. Like I said in my original argument, women don't have the same responsibility to their kids as men do in your eyes. Not only that, but since man work, man can no raise child! That take time! Time is money! Man like money! What do with baby?

Wait, are you saying that the single mother who works two jobs to support her kids should lose custody? She has no time with them! I beat her ex who can't hold a job would be a much better parent.

Uh oh. Suddenly, money is important, and the child should go with the financially stable parent. Tell me again how this isn't determined by, "ok, who has the vagina?"

M said...

Yes, M, you are correct, 43% /= 50% It doesn't. I didn't even take a statistics class and I can see those two numbers are not equal. You're right, you're absolutely right. You're still an asshole, but you are RIGHT.


My point was not that 43 and 50 are not the same number, but that 43% of mothers ordered to pay child support is a much smaller number than 43% of all mothers. Did you really not get that or were you being sarcastic?

Do mothers who are awarded custody of their children not work? Has that been your experience? With the exception of those on welfare, I don't know any single mothers that stay at home with their children. So we get back to who can properly care for the children. The primary income earning father who works, or the working mother awarded support? My bet is on the father. Personal anecdote, I succeeded far better academically and socially once my mother gave me back to my father.

Yes the mothers also work. That wasn't the point. As I was explaining to Ghost, making more money doesn't necessarily make you a better custodial parent. Often it means that you work longer hours at a more demanding job than a person who earns less.

Why do you think that fathers are more capable of caring for children? If fathers are the ones who should be primary caretakers of children then why don't they do so during the marriage? Why is it that so many fathers are content to let their wives handle most of the child care during the marriage but suddenly think that they would be better at it when they might have to send their ex a check every month?

Your discounting of these men's experiences has gotten very disgusting. In Jer's case, the flawed court system awarded the cheating, occasional crack using ex wife placement of the kids. And he should be most angry with himself?

I'm not discounting the men's experiences. I'm sure that some of them had have terrible experiences with the family courts. However I know that most men aren't being denied their children and forced to pay unfair amounts of child support.

Jer chose badly and he and his children are suffering as a result. However if she's a cheater and a drug user then I wonder what he is. At best he's an irresponsible man who had children with a druggie of poor moral character, and more than likely birds of a feather flock together. The courts probably thought that she was the lesser of two evils.

As disheartening as it is, I have to agree that the best course of action for men is to not marry, if what you have to choose from are the likes of M.

Not getting married won't save men from dealing with the family courts. They would also need to avoid having children. Most men aren't willing to do that.

So because I don't think that the family court system is as unfair as some men claim I'm not fit for marriage? LOL I'll tell my husband what you said.

M said...

M, why can't you put "M" in your name instead of Anonymous? You don't even have to login.

Thanks! That is better.


I would note that I grew up with a divorced mom as my primary caregiver. I have definitely shifted my own views on responsibility. My father had huge flaws, but I no longer believe he was the reason the marriage failed.

He did faithfully pay his child support, though it was far less than today's absurd amounts.

The system is very messed up and you try to claim it is working fine. Yeah, right.

No, I never said that the system was working fine. I actually called it flawed. Those flaws should be improved upon where possible. However there is only so much that courts can do for people. You have to make good choices about who you marry and have children with. The courts will sort things out as best they can but there is only so much that they can do for those who have made poor choices in spouses and co-parents.

M said...

gain, I ask, what, besides filing for divorce or even just giving birth (in the cases of unwed mothers) do mothers have to do to get full custody?

Women get custody because they are often the primary caretakers of children in the marriage and because fathers don't request custody as often as mothers. I said this before, pay attention.

Now, follow along, IF THEY ARE BOTH GOOD PARENTS, THEN MONEY IS THE ONLY LOGIC DECIDER.

Why is money the only logical decider as opposed to who the children prefer to live with, or who handled most of the child care for most of the children's lives, or who has a schedule that is more conducive to having primary custody? Both parents are legally and morally obligated to support their kids financially so who makes more is actually irrelevant.

M said...

Well, you ignorant monkey diddler, most men are still married or have custody. You're only talking about divorced men.

I said before that most mothers were married. If you can mentally walk and chew gum at the same time then you can conclude that most fathers are also married. (Who else would these mothers be married to? LOL) Also since I was speaking of fathers who came through the family court system it is obvious that these fathers were either divorced, divorcing or single.

How many did you see use their kids as pawns, or try to screw that bastard out of extra money?

What does "extra" child support look like? How much is too much to pay to support your child and how exactly are you determining this?

Ghost said...

Women get custody because they are often the primary caretakers of children in the marriage and because fathers don't request custody as often as mothers. I said this before, pay attention.

and as I've explained before, most divorced men don't aske for full custody because they have to prove that mom is unfit. Does mom have to prove that dad is unfit? No. Mom is default custodian. The fact that you fail to understand this proves your inherent ignorance of the system.

Why is money the only logical decider?

because a 6 year old can't be asked to make decisions like "which parent do you want to live with?" It's completely irresponsible to even suggest putting a child in that position, but not surprising coming from someone who is part of the problem; it's what support enforcement specializes in. Money is the only logical decider when it comes to caring for a child when both parents are good, decent parents. Why should an unemployed woman with no job prospects be automatically granted custody, especially if she's the one initiating the divorce? After all, a feminist like yourself would likely advise abortion to a single pregnant woman with no job prospects.

I said before that most mothers were married...

it's nice to see sarcasm completely lost on the dimwitted. I said that almost half of moms don't pay support, and you say, "nuh uh! Most moms are married!" you say that most dads don't ask for full custody, I pull the same argument on you, and suddenly, I lack reading comprehension? You're just too adorable for words.

What does "extra" child support look like? How much is too much to pay to support your child and how exactly are you determining this?

when the same two children who cost me 900 a month in child support cost her 250, I think it's safe to say that there's some "extra" screwing going on. Also, that bullshit they call "alimony." Keep in mind that while I was being raped, I never once asked for a reduction, because they're my kids, and I would pay to support them no matter the cost. When I asked the judge why, when I was unemployed, I was still ordered to pay 900, but since she's unemployed, she only has to pay 250, and the answer? "You can find a job. It will be harder for her." right. There's no injustice here. And it's definitely not as bad as men make it out to be.

Ghost said...

And again, since you say that the working man has no time for his children, and that's why they should be with unemployed mom, are you saying that the single mother working two jobs should give up custody to her ex because he'd rather play PS3 than find a job?

If not, why not? Because you're a feminist hypocrite who can only justify separating a woman from her children if she is mentally insane or an addict, but you have no problem separating dads from kids, because "most men" don't even want custody. Couldn't have anything to do with everything from history to his lawyer telling him "you won't get full custody." Couldn't have anything to do with a system that gives out default custody to the mom.

And again, mom has to do NOTHING to prove that she should have custody.

Why can't you just admit that a) the system is completely broken; and b) you're okay with that because it's broken in your favor? We'd all have a lot more respect for you of you were honest.

M said...

and as I've explained before, most divorced men don't aske for full custody because

Most of the time Mom is the default custodian because she was doing most of the child care during the marriage and dad was paying most of the bill. After the divorce she continues doing most of the child care and dad often pays less than half of the bill. I agree there is definitely an injustice here.

I pull the same argument on you, and suddenly, I lack reading comprehension? You're just too adorable for words.
You argued that the percentage of parents who don't pay child support could be applied to parents as a whole.

Numbers don't lie. 47% compared to 32%. I'm more than willing to admit that a third of the men on this planet are too functionally retarded to care for a child and/or dickheaded enough to not care about their offspring. Are you willing to admit that about half of mothers?

Ghost


I would never make an argument as stupid as that one.



when the same two children who cost me 900 a month in child support cost her 250, I think it's safe to say that there's some "extra" screwing going on.

Maybe she should have been paying more instead of you paying less. 900 bucks is not a lot for two kids. It makes sense that your support order will be based on your ability to pay. You have the ability to get a job that pays enough for you to pay 900 a month in support while she only had the ability to get one that paid 250. If she didn't make much money when you married and had children with her, you can't expect her to suddenly make more because you are divorced. Child support is based on your average income/ability to pay.

Ghost said...

So it has nothing to do with what it costs to raise a child, only how much money one makes? Or in my case at the time, "my ability to make more." Make up your mind. I never complained about the amount I had to pay, and no, not because I had such an awesome high paying job, but because I worked two jobs to pay for it (kinda shooting shit all over your "better paying job" theory, but it's what you get for being stupid), and I only questioned it when I saw how little she was asked to contribute when I gained custody.

And you routinely say "most men" or "men often" especially when talking about how little they pay, despite the fact that 68% of men ordered to pay, pay the full amount. There should be no "default custodian." The fact that it goes to women and the fact that you are okay with that not only shows your demented groupthink mentality, you literally care nothing about what's best for the kids, only what's best for the mother. Because women got to stick together! Grrrrl power!

What, no response on you thinking single mothers working two jobs should lose custody to Xbox dad? If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all.

M said...

Ghost -

I said before that the average child support payment does not cover half of the costs of raising a child. Research that yourself. The reason that the child support payment doesn't cover half is because it is generally based on income and ability to pay and not on what it costs to raise a child. Even if "men pay the full amount" of the child support that they are ordered to pay, they probably aren't paying as much as they should be paying if they are covering half the costs of raising the child.

If "Xbox dad" handled most of the child care during the marriage then his lack of a job shouldn't keep him from having custody of the children. He should get alimony too. He was a SAHD who likes video games. If he is just a bum who quit his job to spend his days playing Call of Duty then he obviously isn't a fit parent. No custody for him.

Ghost said...

His lack of a job "shouldn't" or "won't?" Because it will not only eliminate his chances at custody, he will still be forced to pay child support.

You said that the system isn't as bad as men make it out to be. You show me one case where an unemployed father gained custody over gainfully employed mom. If you can't, then admit that the system is broken, because it happens every damn day where jobless mom gets the kids because mom is the default.

You can't simultaneously acknowledge the existence of the default gender bias while saying the system isn't that bad.

As for what it costs to raise children, well, I have 5 now, and suddenly I have more than $30 left after my paycheck. No support from the egg donor, and somehow it manages to cost less. But that's just personal snowflaking. It couldn't possibly be that the state of California was raping my wallet.

They're a government agency. They'd never deliberately screw over the populace for a couple extra bucks.

jer_the_bear said...

"Jer chose badly and he and his children are suffering as a result. However if she's a cheater and a drug user then I wonder what he is. At best he's an irresponsible man who had children with a druggie of poor moral character, and more than likely birds of a feather flock together. The courts probably thought that she was the lesser of two evils."

You act as if I knew I was marrying an unstable substance abuser. She was from the city, and I lived in a very small town. Naivete perhaps. But it's a fair comment so I'll leave it at that.

Short of caffeine and the occasional beer, I don't use any kind of stimulant. I've also been tobacco-free for twelve years now. She smoked pot on occasion with her friends, but I was not aware of the other stuff. I was at the office twelve hours a day.

I can see in retrospect that some "Game" in my relationship might have made it more bearable, but it's in the past now. I put up with her crap because I thought that was how to keep the peace.

Sure, I made some errors in judgment, and I tried to make the best of them. It didn't work. C'est la vie.

I had numerous character references, including her former best friend whose husband, it was later revealed, my wife had also screwed. He offered to make a statement to that effect for court if it would help. This was all deemed irrelevant.

As I said already, I have joint custody and guardianship. It means NOTHING, save that she wasn't able to move to the eastern States with her new guy like she wanted. A Pyrrhic victory, since she made sure my holiday plans were regularly screwed up ever after.

It isn't about poor me, just another hapless male victim. I literally have NO RECOURSE, short of taking the law into my own hands.

Irresponsible? My life would have been a lot more enjoyable if that had been true. I may just try it yet.

Ghost said...

Jer,
The truth will out. Your kids will catch her using, or catch her in one of her many lies, and it will all make sense. They're young and easy to manipulate now, but she can't get away with it forever.

Matthew said...

The divorce industry will be the target of the real life Project Mayhem. Several million strangers on a train.

jer_the_bear said...

Ghost,
You are right. They will figure it out.

I once worked with a realtor who hadn't seen his kids for 23 years. In their 30's the first one Googled his name, found his website, and called him. Since then he has been reunited with all three and has moved back to Ontario to be with them.

So I have hope. It just hurts so bad some days.

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.