The Reality of Child Support

[NobleTry]

Maybe they are doing that just like the woman down the street from me.  She intentionally makes the kids look practically homeless when they go out for effect.  Especially when they are going over Dads.  Guilt trip.  Look how poor we are because of you!  You NEED to give us more money!  

I remember an argument that she had with him outside, everyone could hear it (most likely what she wanted).  From what I could hear; He had asked her to pack their swimming suits and some extra clothes for the weekend.  She said, very loudly I might add, "I am not sending them to your house with my clothes!  You want them to have extra clothes, then you buy them some for your house!"

I couldn't believe what I had heard.  "Her clothes"?  Unreal.  Anyhow, just my two cents based upon what I have seen.  Just more guit tripping and manipulation.

I don't know that this is intentional guilt tripping, manipulation, or playing the victim. I think American women in the broadly defined middle class, generally, truly believe what they are saying when they say these things. Women tend to live their lives through others. This is what makes women, generally, "other centered" and have the innate ability to take over child care in a home, and gain much enjoyment from doing it. In many women, though, this "other centeredness" becomes, I think (at least from my experiences in life), an ugly end in itself. It's the old cliche: the mother lives through her children or the wife lives through her husband. So, in her mind, she can talk about her children's clothes as "my clothes" and the children as "my children" (as every man I think on this board has experienced). It's just how women, generally, think and behave.

[johnnyp]

johnnyp said

The two main "assets" a woman traditionally brings to a marriage is not seperable from her - vigina and domestic services.

This is woman bashing.  Cut it out.  That's a warning.

It is not woman bashing.  I just stated the fact that traditionally a woman provides sex and domestic services.  A man traditionally provides financial support.  When a relationship ends, the man's contribution is easily separated from him, while the same is not true for a woman.

Furthermore - in most cases courts give the children to the mother.  It is my impression that traditionally the children were viewed as belonging to the father (example - why do the children carry the father's family name?).

I find it odd that when a relationship ends, society sees an ongoing obligation on the part of the man even though the woman walks away with all of the assets.  The man is left without his children, sexual services, domestic services, and a child support bill.

Please retract your warning.

[Darth Sidious]

johnnyp said

The two main "assets" a woman traditionally brings to a marriage is not seperable from her - vigina and domestic services.

This is woman bashing.  Cut it out.  That's a warning.

It is not woman bashing.  I just stated the fact that traditionally a woman provides sex and domestic services.  A man traditionally provides financial support.  When a relationship ends, the man's contribution is easily separated from him, while the same is not true for a woman.

Furthermore - in most cases courts give the children to the mother.  It is my impression that traditionally the children were viewed as belonging to the father (example - why do the children carry the father's family name?).

I find it odd that when a relationship ends, society sees an ongoing obligation on the part of the man even though the woman walks away with all of the assets.  The man is left without his children, sexual services, domestic services, and a child support bill.

Please retract your warning.

You are right, johnnyp, and you have my support.  I did not see your comments as "bashing" but as relaying the unvarnished truth of the matter.  Does a man get companionship in marriage?  Only if he is lucky; otherwise, he will be manipulated through mind games and constant nagging.  A man is supposed to carry on with his marital role as "provider" in a divorce which was likely forced upon him and gets nothing but grief and debt in return.  The man ends up objectified as a wallet.  There is no justice whatsoever to be found here.  Marriage today is a mockery of what it once was.

[Mr. Bad]

johnnyp said

The two main "assets" a woman traditionally brings to a marriage is not seperable from her - vigina and domestic services.

This is woman bashing.  Cut it out.  That's a warning.

It is not woman bashing.  I just stated the fact that traditionally a woman provides sex and domestic services.  A man traditionally provides financial support.  When a relationship ends, the man's contribution is easily separated from him, while the same is not true for a woman.

Furthermore - in most cases courts give the children to the mother.  It is my impression that traditionally the children were viewed as belonging to the father (example - why do the children carry the father's family name?).

I find it odd that when a relationship ends, society sees an ongoing obligation on the part of the man even though the woman walks away with all of the assets.  The man is left without his children, sexual services, domestic services, and a child support bill.

Please retract your warning.

Yeah Dr. E., I have to agree with johnnyp on this one - his clarification is exactly how I saw it initially, i.e., that he was simply outlining the assets that women have traditionally brought to marriage: sex, children and homemaking.  He could have, and perhaps should have, stated it in less 'charged' terms, but the message is the same.  To me it's the same as stating that a man's main assets to marriage are 'grunt work' and slave labor. Equally charged verbiage but no less true.

[johnnyp]

You are right, johnnyp, and you have my support.  I did not see your comments as "bashing" but as relaying the unvarnished truth of the matter.  Does a man get companionship in marriage?  Only if he is lucky; otherwise, he will be manipulated through mind games and constant nagging.  A man is supposed to carry on with his marital role as "provider" in a divorce which was likely forced upon him and gets nothing but grief and debt in return.  The man ends up objectified as a wallet.  There is no justice whatsoever to be found here.  Marriage today is a mockery of what it once was.

What I said was blunt, and did omit many other things involved in a relationship.  

But I think a big reason men get married is to have a sexual companion.  There are many other reasons... but I think sex is a pretty consistent reason.

I think a big reason women get married is to get access to children and support to raise those children.

How many marriages do you think would happen if men had no sex drive, and no resources to provide?  

I remember one thing from my college psychology class.  A study trying to determine if there was a universal appealing thing for people.  They showed pictures of food, and nature, and possessions...  In the end, the two things that had the highest probability to elicit a favorable physiological response were:

For men - it was pictures of attractive women

For women - it was pictures of babies.

[Davie_boy]

a father should be able to deduct what he spends directly on his children.

Us father's deduct any alimony we give to her. CS is not currently allowed as a deductible becuase it's "for the kids". Even with all the problems that are inherent in the current system, I do agree that CS payments should not be tax deductible.

It would really burnd my butt to be giving money to a woman in that circumstance.

As I've said before: The price of freedom is not free. (No denigration to what his means to the vets here.) I counted the cost when I decided I could not stay with her, and I choose to pay the cost of both CS and alimony. I would urge any man out there considering divorce to carefully count the cost, for himself, and for his children. These payments are temporary things in time and in time will go away. My mental health was more important than any amount of money. Before my divorce, I could envision paying her the money for x amount of time, and then be free and clear of her forever. I could not imagine continuing to live with her. So I left.

One disadvantage a man has is that his "assets" can easily be seperated from him.  Taking money as a form of compesation, or penalty has a long historical standing.

It's only money. It's not who you are. You can always earn more money, and CS and alimony are temporary states.

Why is divorce so expensive?

Because it's worth it.

[NobleTry]

a father should be able to deduct what he spends directly on his children.

Us father's deduct any alimony we give to her. CS is not currently allowed as a deductible becuase it's "for the kids". Even with all the problems that are inherent in the current system, I do agree that CS payments should not be tax deductible.

It would really burnd my butt to be giving money to a woman in that circumstance.

As I've said before: The price of freedom is not free. (No denigration to what his means to the vets here.) I counted the cost when I decided I could not stay with her, and I choose to pay the cost of both CS and alimony. I would urge any man out there considering divorce to carefully count the cost, for himself, and for his children. These payments are temporary things in time and in time will go away. My mental health was more important than any amount of money. Before my divorce, I could envision paying her the money for x amount of time, and then be free and clear of her forever. I could not imagine continuing to live with her. So I left.

One disadvantage a man has is that his "assets" can easily be seperated from him.  Taking money as a form of compesation, or penalty has a long historical standing.

It's only money. It's not who you are. You can always earn more money, and CS and alimony are temporary states.

Why is divorce so expensive?

Because it's worth it.

For all the men here I will add this, too: Because you are worth it. Believe it. Believe in yourself and what you do, outside of any "her" you might have in your life. Do not let her (or, for that matter, any other person) be the source of your purpose, your satisfaction, your mission, your calling. If you look for those things in people, you are guaranteed disappointment. We are men and we are uniquely made to heed a higher call. To often we men fall into the trap of letting a woman run our life. You see it all the time. Just look around. But, it is so incredibly liberating to be outside of any "relationship" with a woman. There is so much life to enjoy. You are worth it. Believe it!

[NobleTry]

While I am not defending anyone on the way in which CS payments are spent, I will use the old feminist term, "choice", and say that us divorced dads make the choice every month to play by the rules set down by the courts. I choose to make my payments on time. I do not choose how to spend that money because my money has now become her money through this state-sanctioned redistribution of wealth. However, I made a choice years ago to agree to the divorce. I chose not to stay with her, with the full understanding of what the consequences would be. I knew the financial hit I would take, but I made that hard choice. And while I sometimes regret my monthly check writing, I remind myself how better off I am without her. I could not survive living with her American woman madness. My children are suffering a little bit because of it. But, in the long run, the truth will come out. What is reaped will be sown, eventually, I really believe that. As my kids get older they are starting to really understand how kooky their mother can be.

It's all about choice, keep telling yourself that. You made that choice. Now stick to it.  

As the feminists say: It's your body, it's your choice.

Maybe I have a more positive attitude about all this because I'm not in such horrible circumstances as some of the guys here tell. I see my kids. I live pretty close to them. Things could be better. I'm in a tiny townhome now. My savings are pretty down to not much at all. I barely make it every month due to CS and alimony. But I know things could be a lot lot worse. So, all in all, I'm happy with the choices I've made.

That's all.

[Daymar]

I remember one thing from my college psychology class.  A study trying to determine if there was a universal appealing thing for people.  They showed pictures of food, and nature, and possessions...  In the end, the two things that had the highest probability to elicit a favorable physiological response were:

For men - it was pictures of attractive women

For women - it was pictures of babies.

So you're saying you would be interested in marrying a picture of an attractive woman? Well at least you wouldn't have to worry about divorce.

[typhonblue]

Just to interject (once again) with a point of clarification.

Traditional women provide materially for their families. In fact in traditional societies I don't believe a vagina is considered an asset any more then a penis is. Legitimate children are the asset women provide.

Our matriarchal society has inflated the worth of female genitalia to the point where it replaces the material worth women used to invest in marriage, legitimate children, domestic service... hell, in western society having access to female genitalia for as little as seven years means a man owes a lifetime of support.

That is all.

[Daymar]

hell, in western society having access to female genitalia for as little as seven years means a man owes a lifetime of support.

Actually if they marry a military man and divorce them a month later, if the military man goes on to collect a pension then it will split in half with the ex once the husband retires. There have even been cases where the man was ordered to pay the ex-wife payments for half of the pension before the man even retired and started collecting the pension.

[dr e]

n western society having access to female genitalia for as little as seven years means a man owes a lifetime of support.

Sadly, I think it is more like seven seconds.

[zarby]

I wanted a lot more than female genitalia. I wanted a loyal life partner.

Although I was accused towards the end of just wanting that. I was told repeatedly "all you are interested in sex" -- despite the fact that there was nearly none towards the end and I didn't complaint -- I merely expressed interested periodically -- which was usually refused.

Of course, I later learned she was having sex elsewhere.

The point is that I don't think men generally think of women that way. Yes, sex is important and key ingredient, but they want a whole person -- a companion, a friend, a partner, etc. I think it is women who tend to objectify the sex part of it. You see it in the magazines, etc. Further, you hear to from them and you see it in how they act.