stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
Father Knows Best
June 11, 2008
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/080610
--------------------------------------------------------------
Father Knows Best was one of the most widely-viewed and long-running TV shows of the 1950s. True, the program played to a romanticized image of middle-class Americana. But that beats the modern-day alternative of a raging epidemic of sexually-transmitted diseases, safe havens for abandoned infants, and 11-year-old girls wearing thong underwear.
Father Knows Best was yanked from the air in 1960. Before long the popular discourse was filled with the now-familiar litany of feminist grievance.
The women's libbers were especially troubled with the notion of the traditional family. Arch-feminist Simone de Beauvoir argued, "No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children ... precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."
Robin Morgan, former editor of Ms. Magazine, chillingly predicted, "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." And Andrea Dworkin compared marriage to legalized prostitution.
Most laughed at the hyperbole. But the hairy-legged hags were dead serious.
Exactly how do you go about destroying the family which is, after all, the primordial unit of society? The best tactic, they decided, would be to go after the provider and protector image of Dear Old Dad.
Homer Simpson became emblematic of the well-intentioned but inept father. "Patriarchal" was inverted into an epithet synonymous with the mistreatment of women. "Paternalistic" was nearly as bad.
Media accounts began to tar men as wife-beaters, deadbeats, child abusers, clods, and all-around dufuses. Every one of those stereotypes was false or highly exaggerated, but no matter. As author Warren Farrell quipped, "father knows best" turned into "fathers molest."
Since men weren't up to the task, the government would need to step in, the Lefties argued. A series of legal opinions, laws, and government programs came along, all claiming to "empower" women: Roe v. Wade, Violence Against Women Act, welfare programs, maternal custody preference, draconian child support programs, and more.
If removing flocks of children from their fathers is your yardstick, these programs were successful beyond belief. From 1960 to 1990, says the Census Bureau, the number of American children living with their biological fathers plunged from 82% to 62%. As columnist Dennis Prager recently wrote, "The contemporary absence of men in boys' lives is not only unprecedented in American history; it is probably unprecedented in recorded history."
These fatherless children are far more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience a range of educational and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior.
But at least they're liberated from the baleful influence of their fathers!
Fortunately, family advocates saw where this was all headed and began to question the fem-think. Several groups are now coming to the rescue of daddy-hood (I'm including the web address if you want more information):
- This week the National Partnership for Community Leadership is holding a major conference in Washington DC to honor African-American dads: www.npclstrongfamilies.com
- Next week the National Fatherhood Initiative will release a landmark report, "The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man: The Public Costs of Father Absence:" www.fatherhood.org
- Fathers and Families has been working with the media to promote positive images of dads: www.fathersandfamilies.org
And several groups are working to increase father involvement after divorce:
- Marriage Savers has just come out in support of shared parenting, revealing that "of the six states that passed the strongest Joint Custody laws, five experienced the largest drops in the divorce rate." www.marriagesavers.org
- The American Coalition for Fathers and Children is urging citizens to sign a petition that reminds us, "Children thrive with the active involvement of both parents": www.acfc.org
- And the Children's Rights Council has succeeded in introducing a Congressional resolution in favor of joint custody: www.crckids.org
True, frazzled fathers don't always measure up to the iconic images of Father Knows Best. But on one point, these groups have hit the nail right on the head: a government program is a lousy substitute for a dad.
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
allthumbs
Platinum
Reged: 07/12/07
Posts: 560
|
|
Oh, but wait. Wasn't it Hillary Clinton that told us "It Takes a Village" to raise our kids?
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
Only if it's a Tuesday in an even month, but not during "that time of the month", or on a Thursday on odd-numbered months, but only if she is east of the Mississippi. IOW, whenever the hell she feels like changing her mind.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5138
|
|
[quote]True, frazzled fathers don't always measure up to the iconic images of Father Knows Best.[quote]
I want to point out that the image of "frazzled fathers" is interesting, as it's assumed that they are not iconic... or noble. And yet whenever you see the "frazzled mothers" after divorce, you hear someone talking about how darned noble they are for juggling everything and not ending up on an insane asylum. The mother who is so frazzled that she considers drowning her kids is given sympathy, even... while the man who keeps his own sadness away from the kids and kills himself instead is pointed at as a pathetic soul who had emotional problems so thank GOD we kept him away from the kids and he didn't have the chance to infect them with his obvious suicidal thoughts!
I always find it interesting when a descriptive term applied to a man is seen as a negative when, applied to a woman, it would be seen as sympathetic.
Oh... thanks for this article Stoltz... I like the references/resources... and also do you notice... in a LEGITIMATE resource meant to be persuasive to people, just just crow among like-minded people, they actually SPELL OUT things like VAWA.... and one other thing about that.., maybe did you notice: if you've spelled out things like VAWA, you can use words like "draconian" in describing child support enforcement and it dosn't look quite as biased to do so?
I mean, a militant feminist would not like the word, but then she's also be offended at the whole article... but those who are in the "undecided" column of the joint parenting contraversy have a better chance of being persuaded by this article, because of it's complete report without too many perjorative or arcane language or acronyms.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
I always find it interesting when a descriptive term applied to a man is seen as a negative when, applied to a woman, it would be seen as sympathetic.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The same as when you see a woman slap a man across the face, HE was the one in the wrong. Or when you see a woman in a movie throw a plate at a man, only to have it whiz by him and smash against the wall - it's downright hilarious (/sarcasm)! It's all how we've been programmed over the years to view things between genders - the same old women=weak/innocent and men=strong/evil labeling. It's not that that in itself is bad (although it is), but when you start getting things written into law and judged because of it is where things cross the line, IMO.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oh... thanks for this article Stoltz... I like the references/resources... and also do you notice... in a LEGITIMATE resource meant to be persuasive to people, just just crow among like-minded people, they actually SPELL OUT things like VAWA.... and one other thing about that.., maybe did you notice: if you've spelled out things like VAWA, you can use words like "draconian" in describing child support enforcement and it dosn't look quite as biased to do so?
--------------------------------------------------------------
sigh
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5138
|
|
Heck, it's not as obvious as a slap on the face even... I don't know which is worse, the woman slapping a man and being considered "cute" over it... or entire sitcom sdevoted to proving that the man of the family is a socially inept fool who is incompetent with kids and needs to be treated like a child in front of his own children (Everybody loves Raymond)... in ONE episode the man looked at what this was doing to the kids, and was upset with it, but in general, the whole plot was devoted to him being the brunt of jokes from everyone else who were all so much more clever than him.
I want to see a sitcom where the guy is a REAL dad, COMPETENT and treated as if he's competent, where he refuses to allow people to treat him like a fool. Last one I remember like that was Cosby... and that ended in 1992... a whole generation ago. But heck, weren't there even times on that show where his lawyer-wife gave him the EYE and basically informed him that he was not right about this, that or the other thing? I guess that's realistic though in that none of us are perfect... but on that show, wasn't she portrayed as perfect?
I guess that's the problem... no matter how right a guy is, the gal is always MORE right, according to the media. GRRR.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
I know Cosby himself is a probably a decent role model as a father figure, but I never saw his sitcom so can't comment on it's content.
Someone recently in another thread gave a list of shows that portrayed single fathers in good light. Many of them were long outdated (e.g., Family Affair, Courtship of Eddie's Father) - that is they appeared before (or just on the front-end) of the feminist foray that sent the perception of a father in a completely different direction. Another on the list was "Two-and-a-half Men", but even on that show the single father is seen as a bumbling idiot with absolutely no backbone (of course it's a comedy, so what'd ya expect?).
Of course when it comes to women, shows like "Ugly Betty" are a hit. She's single (as is her sister on the show, who - interestingly - is a SINGLE mother of an obviously gay SON [wink,wink]), always in control, always bails out the male president of the company, and is ... well ... ugly (meaning, she is strong without the need for beauty to help her out). And let's not even get into the other characters of the show (the _gay_ MALE office worker [wink,wing again], the _power-hungry_ WOMAN, etc).
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1063
|
|
===========================================================
...A series of legal opinions, laws, and government programs came along, all claiming to "empower" women: Roe v. Wade, Violence Against Women Act, welfare programs, maternal custody preference, draconian child support programs, and more.
===========================================================
In lists of changes to law which empowered women, why do they always forget to include "no-fault" divorce? Surely nothing could be more empowering to women than the very thing which, in the first place, permits the actual implementation of the potential harm to men, families and children cited in this article, and much more, to the woman's enrichment and benefit.
I predict that these no-fault divorces, resulting in fatherless families, would be reduced to practically zero if one spouse had to PROVE serious misbehavior by the other, or PROVE that there was a business relationship with their spouse, before they could get any presumptuous, so-called "marital" or "community" property in a divorce. And unless such misbehavior could be proven or it could be proven that one spouse had been denied the opportunity to work outside the home--because of their marital or parental obligations-- there would be no alimony, and further that unless it could be proven that one spouse is unfit for equal custody of children, then equal custody would be mandatory.
I would really like to know if anyone disagrees with me, or does not believe that the changes I have outlined above would go a very long way toward solving the problems mentioned in the article cited, and why. I have essentially posted this same proposal numerous times here and have yet to get a reply rationally criticizing it. Unless I can get such a reasonable reply this time I will conclude, finally, that there is no sensible justification for the failure of any right-minded person to strongly support my view and to help me to advance it.
Edited by jbar (06/12/08 08:04 PM)
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5138
|
|
To be fair, Ugly Betty began in latin america where stereotypes run rampant about gay males and beautiful women. It's set in a women's fashion magazine headquarters where physical beauty is highly valued. The intent is to bust the stereotypes by exaggerating them in this showcase of extremes. I understand that in latin america it was limited to one or two seasons as it's story was resolved in that length of time and they did not seek to find ways to extend it just becasue it was commercially popular. I've not watched it often, but if her homelife is also at issue and involves a single mom sister, I'd venture a guess that this is part of the hollywood twist to the storyline... added for the purpose of stretching it into infinity if the opportunity arose to make more $$ from the effort.
I'm actually not so troubled by the image of bitchy versus ugly women heads of business, as I am by the very poor image of fathers. And you're right that 2 & a half men show also seems like the guys involved are a couple of bumbling fools... the skirt chasing man-bo and his socially inept brother.
It might be a good idea to have someone interested in this subject contact the writers for some of these sitcoms, as well as the producers. Not that we would ever be able to get a return to the Father Knows Best type of father, but maybe we could help them find a commercially viable STRONG father type who had a brain and couldu manage social issues without being gay.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1063
|
|
===========================================================
To be fair, Ugly Betty began in latin america...
===========================================================
Who cares about "Ugly Betty" when men are being financially raped, legally, by their wives in courtrooms daily? Just what is it that you don't get, Gigi, about the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" whether in a criminal court or a divorce court??
What peculiar weakness of mind is it that makes so many women incapable of understanding that the cruel punishments of so-called community property, alimony and theft of a man's children are administered to him with NO DEMONSTRATION WHATSOEVER being required that he is even remotely guilty of any behavior which would warrant such treatment? Anyone who self-servingly refuses to see the clear facts of the theft being perpetrated against men, in divorce courts, deserves the same punishment as the thieves--be them politicians, lawyers, judges, gold diggers or the "feminists" who so obstinately support and enable the vile behavior of these types of people!
Edited by jbar (06/13/08 02:16 AM)
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5138
|
|
How did this turn from a decent thread about how to progress away from Dads being viewed as buffoons and abusive, so that maybe they can return to being real dads, getting a full share of time with the children, and having a healthier society overall related to parenting issues, into a thread accusing women of being gold-diggers and taking your possessions via community property law? Just becasue you said so? Are you so narrow in yoru focus that you can not allow a thread about what it takes to be a good father to go without your personal campaign against community property somehow getting inserted into it?
|
malone
Platinum
Reged: 12/30/07
Posts: 2026
|
|
[quote]How did this turn from a decent thread ... into a thread accusing women of being gold-diggers and taking your possessions via community property law? [/quote]
Oh I can help you with the answer to that Gigi. It's simple. Because Jbar has an unnatural, irrational dislike of women that at times verges on paranoia that ALL women are quote: "financial rapists"...amongst all the other things he has referred to women as.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
Not sure about other Latin countries, but I've heard that Mexico is WORSE than the USA when it comes to issues such as DV, Men's Rights vs. Women's Rights, child support/custody, etc. Again, something I've only heard, but not researched.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
I can't speak for Jbar, but I think a lot of his angst is similar to mine in that it isn't so much a 'woman against man' issue as it is a 'government/society against man' in which (1) women are given more of an opportunity to become "financial rapists", etc., and (2) men are more apt to have their constitutional rights violated simply because of their gender.
But I could be wrong.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5138
|
|
I understnad being frustrated at your constitutional rights being violated... though JBar has always ALSO framed it in the "women = evil, women want all our money and the government lets them get it" kind of way...
My current frustration is at the fact that there's almost never a thread in DivorceSupport forum which deals with father's issues, where he doesn't put in his two cents about property.
There are a numbers of father's rights groups which actually discuss father's rights without trying to confront their own personal concerns about money. I even know one group where, if you post on there with a complaint about how child support is sucking you dry and you need to get out of it... they'll slam you with questions about how often you're seeing the kid and whether you're thinking of the child's needs or just your own desire for a new... whatever. These are GUYS doing the slamming (I know some of them personally), and they get VERY frustrated when they see someone coming online to make a stereotypical complaint against financial issues when the issue they're trying to confront is how to be a good father in a separated household. And how to get the courts to ALLOW them to become that.
I'm frustrated that the DivorceSUpport forum, because JBar just won't let it be, can never have a discussion of parenting by fathers, without having his personal issue of community property enter into it. I've seen him advise fathers who wanted to find a way to get more time with thier kid, on how to divert thier money to an offshore acount and/or move away (from the kid) to a country where they'll get the house in a divorce (he's not figured out that you can't force a divorce decree in a foreign country to be honored by a property recorder's office here... but that's another issue).
If someone popped in that that kind of inane talk to poor fathers who probably do NOT have lots of cash to hide in offshore accounts, who are struggling to make ends meet and figure out how to spend time with the kids while working 3 jobs to pay for RAISING them... well... he'd be flamed off the boards there.
This forum has many more resources, much broder information base... members who are on other sides of an issue, so a discussion of father's issues would be very valuable for the insights that some others could provide on it... But if we keep insisting on diverting every conversation about men's issues into property saving conversations... well, it's almost become comical, it's that ridiculous. JBar has become a charicature... well, he became that a long time ago... a constitutionalist (which I am one, so don't shoot me for saying that... I'm just not a charicature of one)... isolationist, deadbeat, emotionally abusive man who thinks up ways to get his wife committed so she won't take his precious income earned during the marriage.
I am surprised that the men of this forum never speak up the way they do on that other forum, and tell men who say, "I impregnated a girl and now she turned out to be a bad mother, how do I get out of paying child supprot"... to go fly a kite because men like him make the rest of you look bad. I'm wishing that the men on this forum would stand up and say, "Jbar, shut up already. If you don't want a woman to share your stuff, don't marry her, or divorce her as soon as you figure out that you value your stuff more than her. You're making the rest of us who want to do right by our exes look like jerks, and attitudes like yours make it harder for good people to get the right thing to happen in the courts.".
I'm just surprised that one one but me has ever said that attitudes like his hurt the whole cause... that ONE person who is that vocal and wrong-minded and money-grubbing can undo 100 guys who walk into court and do NOT try to hide money, cheat their wives, embarass them into silence or send them to live in a third world contry with no means of support.
OK, I'm just frustrated today... having read some wonderful views of fathers who really want to keep the focus on good fathering, who, if they succeed, will do WONDERS for all the other issues you have otu there...
I mean, you DO know that if the father's rights group get the 50-50% shared parenting plans to be the norm in this country, that there will no longer be the huge disparities in what women take out of a divorce versus what men take? Becasue women will be told to go back to work... that they have JUST as much time and opportunity to get good jobs... that the men have JUST as much right to the marital home for teh kids to live in 50% of the time... that the men have JUST as much right to the furniture, cloting, etc...
YOu DO know that political movement, REAL political movement, starts with people who resolve the most inequitable, easiest to sympathize with issue... and the fatherhood issue, the shared parenting one... IS the most sympathetic because in this country where everything is "for the children", it's a good idea to align yourself with what's in the children's best intersts, and the job is as small as making everyone understadn how important fathers are? You DO understand that the cause of a guy wanting to keep everything that was acquired during th emarriage and tossing his wife out on her ear is not exactly as sympathetic?
Sigh... Sorry... Just frustrated that a good thread was hijacked...
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
Not to ignore your response, but I was listening on the AM radio this am. The show is basically a run-of-the-mill news show. The discussion at hand had nothing whatsoever to do with divorce, custody, support, etc. I can;t recall if it was one of the DJ's, a guest, or someone calling in, but a guy basically said he had the "average rural Texas" values and if could do nothing else, he'd bring all the fathers who are behind on child support to the town square and "hang 'em all." He didn't have an angry tone and I guess he just had some beef about it from something he's read (or maybe has a female relative who isn't getting CS), but it REALLY made me think of just how out-of-touch a lot of people - EVEN MEN - are about the whole child support issue. Yes, there probably ARE *MEN* (notice it was "MEN" and not people) who have the means to pay CS but purposely don't. But that's a VERY, VERY small percentage of not only divorced fathers, but of men who are behind, period.
A'las, such a long way to go.
EDIT: I remember now, the topic on the show was what you would do on Father's Day if you could. That's when the guy made his statement.
Edited by stoltz (06/13/08 01:08 PM)
|
allthumbs
Platinum
Reged: 07/12/07
Posts: 560
|
|
Divorce is financially difficult on both parties, the husband and the wife. Many of us may come from very average and modest backgrounds and occupations. I agree it is paramount that the NCP contributes substantially to the financial welfare of his/her children, but the NCP should not be "criminalized" by the family court if they cannot provide an exorbitant amount ordered by the court. In my case, the court declared I made $5,000.00 a month, even though I supplied two years of tax returns showing my income to be less. Just because the court could, and thought that's what I should earn. They imputed my ex's income with minimum wage, even though she had actually earned nearly $20.00 per hour. IMO, that's a "sexist" decision and I'd agree the family court is still, for the most part, gender biased.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
I agree, in most cases divorce is a financial smack to the face for both parties. What troubles me is what you mentioned in the 2nd-half of your post. Most of the laws and judgements received WRT Family Law arises from (usually erroneous and/or not fully disclosed) data that is introduced from a heavily-biased source - mostly women/feminist groups. Granted, there have been some strides WRT custody and support, but most still live by the original concept. For example, many/most? states still want the children to have the same financial lifestyle pre-divorce, but fail to consider that there are now TWO households to support, which further puts the burden on the parents.
|
EZmark
Platinum
Reged: 06/04/07
Posts: 292
Loc: Florida
|
|
I know you'd like to have a philosophically pure discussion, but unfortunately it is not possible to seperate all the other issues from the "being a good father" because the situation many if not most divorced fathers live in daily is affected by many factors but especially property loss, CS & alimony obligations VS survival, and loss of children. Victims have a different perspective, not as understanding. It is hard to discus abstracts while tied to the whipping post. If jbar is a characture ie:atypical of what becomes of many: one has to wonder what made him that way. I think you know.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5138
|
|
Geez EZ, the charicature of JBar was NOT caused by any actual experience with the system. He is NOT a father and not a stepfather. He does not live with his wife and has no interest in divorcing her because he fears the law. He cannot get a lawyer to promise him that he'll get everything, so he is consumed with ways of figuring out how to intimidate her into not filing.
And if you saw some of his tactics I think you'd also be fleeing from his defense. He has threatened to falsely accuse her of things and have her committed to an insane asylum (she's a foreigner so she has only a vague understanding of the laws and does not know that this is not as likely to happen as he claims). She works and he lives off disability, having fought hard for it (so you know it's not a CLEAR physical disability, but rather had a severe mental component, you know?)... and getting a lump sum for back disability pay. He used his settlement to buy some properties. She kept working. He fears that she'll lay claim to some portion of his properties, so he figured out how to convince her to go home to spend time with her dying mother in her homeland, and not return. For YEARS.
HE's never actually availed himself of the laws, but his fear of it (from having read alarmist stories off bunches of blogs) makes him act like this. He has no actual experience with the divorce laws at all which cause him to feel this way, ONLY his conjecture and his interesting, rather skewed view of things. He actually believes that his wife would never be able to have an atotrney represent her in court. He believes any atotrney doing so woudl be unethical. He says it's because he has proof that she's schizophrenic and it's against legal ethics to represent a mentally ill person. THe twists & turns of logic he took to get to this conclusion were amazing, and as a result, he advised his wife on this law and convinced her that eh was right, so that if she dared to tak ehim to court, she'd lose it all.
She has never demanded anythign from him, has not lived with him in YEARS (if at all, they maintained separate households even when amicably married, to hear him tell it), and has been living on her own all this time. She did have a business which failed and he feared terribly that she woudl demand half of his for that... but it's been a few years and so far, nothing. There was a point where he heard she was back in the country and had a car. I don't recall what the issue was but he wanted to prevent her from driving it and had twisted himself into all kinds of logical contortions, something involving deporting her or something...
I mean, this guy has nothing to do with community property law other than fear mongering... so when he decides to show up in EVERY thread involving fatherhood and tries to hijack it...
Well, I've seen other forums where the fahters actually kept control of each other adn didn't spend all thier time patting each other on the backs for coming up with new and more extremist points of view... and it's frustrating to see that on htis forum where there are so many good guys, none of you are speaking up to tell him to just suck it up & get it over with and stop trying to make men look like jerks by trying to mess up thier wives...
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5138
|
|
[quote]Not to ignore your response, but I was listening on the AM radio this am. The show is basically a run-of-the-mill news show. The discussion at hand had nothing whatsoever to do with divorce, custody, support, etc. I can;t recall if it was one of the DJ's, a guest, or someone calling in, but a guy basically said he had the "average rural Texas" values and if could do nothing else, he'd bring all the fathers who are behind on child support to the town square and "hang 'em all." He didn't have an angry tone and I guess he just had some beef about it from something he's read (or maybe has a female relative who isn't getting CS), but it REALLY made me think of just how out-of-touch a lot of people - EVEN MEN - are about the whole child support issue. Yes, there probably ARE *MEN* (notice it was "MEN" and not people) who have the means to pay CS but purposely don't. But that's a VERY, VERY small percentage of not only divorced fathers, but of men who are behind, period.
A'las, such a long way to go.
EDIT: I remember now, the topic on the show was what you would do on Father's Day if you could. That's when the guy made his statement. [/quote]
You know, there are men out there who are deadbeats, purposely. And those men probably should be strung up in the town square by their thumbs and humiliated. They are NOT "men", in my opinion.
One of those sites that you referred to says that ... I think I added it up and found that it was about 3% of all children are being raised by single men. That's PATHETIC. It needs to be more than that. Now, there's a difference between men who impregnated a woman without ever marrying her and then found themselves having a hard time convincing anyone to let them have a place in the kid's live... and men who had children with thier wives, who came home to the children every day and then at the time of separation were 100% cut off of all that time just because the mother said that she was "primary".
If the presumption were that there is no "primary" parent, but just that in a household headed by a couple they are allowed to choose a division of labor that they no longer have the luxury of choosing when they separate... and that both parents are presumed to be jointly responsible for the children AND the support of the children, then the only child support we'd have in those circustances is a small amount needed to bring up a sub-standard lower wage earner's home up to par... not EVEN par with the higher wage earner's, but at least giving the kids enough bedrooms and making sure she could afford to heat the place in the winter... We'd have a lot less people thinking that the woman had an automatic right to keep the marital home (and since most can't afford to do that if they're the lower wage earner, most of them would be moving out and eithe rselling the house to a stranger or selling thier half to the husband.)
If we could oootch the outcomes of custody cases towards mroe fairness in TIME division between the parents, the natureal result would be more parity in support obligations.
|
EZmark
Platinum
Reged: 06/04/07
Posts: 292
Loc: Florida
|
|
I'm not going to argue with you Gigi because I think we actually agree on the moral idea of fairness and the importance of both parents, the state of mind of victims of the unbeleivably devious and evil ways of narcissists, and perhaps more. I just don't share your upbeat and 'sigh' hopeful outlook, maybe because my wounds are so fresh, or because I don't have anyone else in my life (not even looking!) lucky as you do. I think that positive attitude is good for a support forum though, even if as a foil. I'm just saying that jbar's views, whether extreme or not, and apart from the person himself, are as valid on every thread as is the effect being broke is valid in every decision a person has to make in their life. This is the reality of divorce, the family court system, society and all the rest, and I don't see it changing soon or without a lot more people sufferring and dying.
Apparently jbar is also an engineer and must have an analytical mind. I don't know if he's crazy, but even crazy people can utter profound statements. IMHO jbar should start another community property thread, link to this thread, and keep bumping it as that is apparently one of his foremost concerns. That would be the polite way to do it, but we're not in a theatre and you can't call the usher every time you see CAPS. I have seen ranting by many on many threads, I don't know that it's ever out of place on an open divorce forum, certainly property division as unfair as it is warrants ranting. I try to I speak up about things that I have personal experience with and let others figure out for themselves what to think about me or jbar. I do that in my regular life too. The only time I ever mind another's business is if I observe abuse of children or animals, I think that's everyone's business because they are defenseless. IMO jbar does not tarnish fatherhood or me any more than jaded tarnishes you.
Not to get distracted, I never liked Father Knows Best, way too corny for me. Ward Cleaver yyccchh too. Now Baywatch is another story, thats still running in syndication in Asia.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1063
|
|
Gigi, EZ has it the right take on my comments. You however still don't "get it"--and even still have the story of my experiences all wrong. My own personal story and experience are not even the point though; the point is that, as I have often attempted to explain to you before, courts outrageously ASSUME that men owe their wives half of everything they have, and this assumption can only be rebutted by proof that any particular dollar, titled exclusively in the man's name, is NOT rightly one-half the property of his wife and to a special, high standard, only seen in criminal cases.
I worked for many years, risking my life and health, to accumulate a few dimes--before I ever met my wife--and for the last ten years or so I have had to grapple with the reality that one-half of these assets belong to her, as with the best of intentions I moved this money numerous times between investments so that, as a result, the strict traceability required by law to prove any seperate property is likely impossible. In addition some records were destroyed in a fire. This schizophrenic woman now has the ability, in all likelihood, to rob me blind any time her "voices" may so instruct her and, given her mental problems, could even be disabled and force me to pay her alimony for the rest of her life (possibly even from my estate after I am dead)!
You know, Gigi, I believe that the only thing which would allow you to understand what I am talking about would be to experience victimization by this kind of stupid law for yourself. Only if someone like you could experience the moment, for yourself, when you suddenly realize that you are already guilty and already legally liable to someone else--even though you know that you are not in fact guilty or liable--could you ever appreciate the acute, exquisite agony resulting from the realization that you are the official and agreed, proper victim and whipping boy, of a self-serving demagogic system. Until that time any additional attempts to explain the injustice of such a system will be wasted on you.
BTW EZ, I have started a number of threads on this subject of property, on this site and others, and they all essentially ran their course after a great many posts. These are the threads in which I previously tried to educate Gigi, but she just can't seem to ever get it. Maybe she needs to feel the cold sting of demagogic and arbitrary law herself by, for example, getting a job as a secretary and having her boss order her to sign the paychecks, subsequent to which the boss leaves town with all of the company's assets, leaving her personally responsible BY LAW for all of the company's debts (this actually happens)!
Edited by jbar (06/14/08 01:54 AM)
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
From CNN ...
Dads willing to pay for time with kids
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/06/13/cb.dads.home/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------
Many working dads would be willing to trade work for family time if it were financially possible, according to CareerBuilder.com's annual "Working Dads" survey.
Thirty-seven percent say they would take a pay cut if it meant spending more time at home.
Of those fathers, 42 percent say they would take a pay cut of 10 percent or more. Of dads who live in households with more than one income, 37 percent would leave their job if their family could live off their spouse or significant other's income.
------------------------------------------------------------
Daddy Boot Camp
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812052,00.html
----------------------------------------------------------
"The societal view of dads is that we're bumbling fools," Steve Dubin tells his all-male audience. It's Saturday morning in Weymouth, Mass., and 14 soon-to-be fathers are paying him to help keep them from fulfilling that stereotype. Dubin, a p.r. executive and Little League coach, pairs three rookies with three dads willing to hand over their babies for training purposes. Support the head, the instruction begins. Act naturally because babies can smell fear. Roll them over and rub their backs if they start to cry. "You'll probably hold the baby differently from your wife. That's O. K.," Dubin says. "But this will be the beginning of, 'Why are you doing it that way?'" he warns. "Tell your wife, 'We're going to do things differently, and you have to allow me to.'"
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
pueblonative
Platinum
Reged: 03/21/06
Posts: 337
Loc: Colorado
|
|
You know how many judges and cse workers would go apeturd (pardon the phrase) if men started doing that?
--------------------
NCP revue
|
numbnms
Platinum
Reged: 10/18/07
Posts: 708
|
|
Stoltz in essence taking a paycut is what I did in order to secure 50/50 custody. I am paying roughly 50% more in child support than I should and did so to 'buy' my time with the kids. So yes I am more than anecdotal evidence of the willingness of men to do such things. She was willing to sell the kids and hey I was there with a check.
I was told there was no way in heck my particular judge would allow 50/50 custody and she had never done so in the past. Our agreement hit her desk, she saw I was paying 150% of child support she signed it without ever batting an eye. What do you think the odds of the same judge signing the same agreement with me paying 50% of the expected child support? Even if that is what the parents agreed to?
Nope courts arent biased....off my soapbox, see I wasnt up there long this time.
--------------------
Forget waiting for the storm to pass
Learn to dance in the rain
|
cedc
Platinum
Reged: 03/02/07
Posts: 556
</ | |
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
