Bachelorette parties- immaturity and sexism

[Garak]

You're right P4.  I thought my first wife was unlike the rest and saw nothing blantant until the day she decided to walk out with no warning after 12 years of a seemingly happy marriage.  The last time I ever saw her was 20 minutes after she announced she "can't do this anymore."  20 minutes is how long she gave me to discuss our entire marraige, but of course it wasn't even a real discussion.  Just her laundry list of BS, such as "I never really loved you."  BS-you can't fake loving someone for that long.  She just wanted to make nothing sound open to negotiation or leave any room for me to make her doubt her decision.  I was never wealthly, so I guess she just wanted my sperm, because she was still talking about having kids together just months before she left.  At least I (barely) escaped that scam.  My current wife talked about thinking of resorting to having a child on her own before she met me, and after having heard that, I made it clear I'll only consider having foster children with her.

Can anybody confirm that there's no way I can be held financially responsible for a foster child if we break up?  I assume we could return the foster child in the case of divorce, or if she wanted to keep the child, she'd be solely responsible.  Just starting the ball rolling with the whole process.  If anyone has some advice on this matter, feel free to PM me.  Thanks.

I don't know about foster children but...

My brother and sister in law adopted a child last year. A few months ago they split up and as the story typically goes...the child was considered hers and he was responsible for the child alimony.

In the case of foster care...it is possible it would go the same way...I really don't know though.

I have an aquaintance who is about to make the biggest mistake of his life. He is wealthy and his gf (whom I know better than I know him) manipulated him into marriage. She broke up with him, moved out of his house and then only came back under the condition that they be married by Oct 2007. Well, he gave in and has been married since Oct. Further, she wants him to adopt HER son from a previous relationship and he has agreed (though it hasn't been done yet).

Yes, family law is a mess but we really need to look at something...family law comes in AFTER she acts on her nature. Which came first?

Even if the family law system wouldn't allow women to take advantage of men, women would still desire it and that is nature.

[Mr. X]

I have an aquaintance who is about to make the biggest mistake of his life. He is wealthy and his gf (whom I know better than I know him) manipulated him into marriage. She broke up with him, moved out of his house and then only came back under the condition that they be married by Oct 2007. Well, he gave in and has been married since Oct. Further, she wants him to adopt HER son from a previous relationship and he has agreed (though it hasn't been done yet).

I know someone who went through that though he wasn't wealthy. She pressured him into marriage then adoption then BAM she brought out her real boyfriend, dumped him and he was now stuck paying for child support, he can't see the kids and she's off with her boyfriend. Guilted and shamed into the whole thing "don't you love my kids? If you loved them you'd adopt them."

[Garak]

I have an aquaintance who is about to make the biggest mistake of his life. He is wealthy and his gf (whom I know better than I know him) manipulated him into marriage. She broke up with him, moved out of his house and then only came back under the condition that they be married by Oct 2007. Well, he gave in and has been married since Oct. Further, she wants him to adopt HER son from a previous relationship and he has agreed (though it hasn't been done yet).

I know someone who went through that though he wasn't wealthy. She pressured him into marriage then adoption then BAM she brought out her real boyfriend, dumped him and he was now stuck paying for child support, he can't see the kids and she's off with her boyfriend. Guilted and shamed into the whole thing "don't you love my kids? If you loved them you'd adopt them."

You bet, shaming men has always worked and women know it well.

In her case, I don't think she has a boyfriend in waiting but I think she wants a big chunk of his business (atleast the money from it, not the actual work that goes into making the money) and this is the best way to get it and to get it for free.

[The Gonzman]

Some things are a logical consequence of having no consequences.  I know when my daughter first came to live with me we went round and round - she wasn't used to having constraints, and saw it as "oppression."  (Of course, she didn't like the idea of going back to her mother's where her mother's girlfriend would start raping her again, so she didn't have a lot of choice)

[The Invisible Male]

Thanks for the stories, guys.  That is why I won't even consider adoption for the most part.  Foster pareting seems to be the only way to avoid the liability in case of divorce.  Obviously, I'll be doing more research on that matter.  The biggest problem seems to be that there are no guarantees for fathers--the judges decide whatever they want.  My wife tried to reassure me that she wouldn't make me pay child support if we divorced (she makes much more than I do) and is willing to sign an agreement to that effect, but I'm not naive enough to think that would actually be held up in court.  It enrages me that two adults that consent to a contract, signed in front of a lawyer who has made them aware of their rights, can't have that contract honored in a court of law.  It's just assumed that if the contract is seemingly disadvantageous for the woman, she must have been coerced (mental abuse!) even if she pleads that she's okay with the arrangement.  The only way I'd consider adoption is if the kid was 16 or 17 years old, then the risk window would only be 1 or 2 years (at least in states where the NCP is not responsible for college tuition).  I would have liked to have been a real parent to a biological or adopted child, but my (justified) paranoia level is too high, after having been burned once and my current wife having considered solo parenting.  If nothing else, foster parenting will give us a chance to see how we interact together as parents before adopting a teenager.

[Aegis]

Can anybody confirm that there's no way I can be held financially responsible for a foster child if we break up?  I assume we could return the foster child in the case of divorce, or if she wanted to keep the child, she'd be solely responsible.  Just starting the ball rolling with the whole process.  If anyone has some advice on this matter, feel free to PM me.  Thanks.

I understand the foster child - foster parent relationship to be that you are being compensated by your state a per-diem to care for and raise the state's child.  The amount varies, but if you're a good parent, it's probably just a little less than your expenses.  The state provides total health insurance in every state I've heard of.  As for financial responsibility, the foster parent is expected to cover day-to-day care such as clothing and feeding a foster child, but only so long as the child remains placed in their home.  I understand that a foster parent is free to terminate the arrangement with the state at any time.  I would strongly urge against that, though, for the sake of these kids who get bounced around so much between homes.  At some point, kids give up trying to form a new family.  Every failed placement is another wound.

Lots of times, placements don't work out because the child's behavior is just too much to handle.  Sometimes it's bad, and sometimes it is truly that bad.  Like strangle the cat because that's what my cousin taught me to do when I feel mad kind of bad.  You can't be a typical passive parent and do this.  What I mean is that most parents are what you might call hobbyists.  They are professionals at doing their jobs, and they come home to relax, not put on their game face.  You really have to be a professional, the sort of dad that other dads would go so far as to pay as a consultant to come in and show them how it is done.  You have to hold yourself to that standard.  You have to constantly ask yourself, would other dads pay me to come over and show me how to do this, and if not, how can I get that good?  When you are a hobbyist dad, you have to say that well we're all human.  When you are a professional dad, you say that yes we are all human, but you happen to be the best damn human for the job anywhere.

I'm waiting on my placement, by the way.  Hoping for before Christmas.   

[Garak]

Thanks for the stories, guys.  That is why I won't even consider adoption for the most part.  Foster pareting seems to be the only way to avoid the liability in case of divorce.  Obviously, I'll be doing more research on that matter.  The biggest problem seems to be that there are no guarantees for fathers--the judges decide whatever they want.  My wife tried to reassure me that she wouldn't make me pay child support if we divorced (she makes much more than I do) and is willing to sign an agreement to that effect, but I'm not naive enough to think that would actually be held up in court.  It enrages me that two adults that consent to a contract, signed in front of a lawyer who has made them aware of their rights, can't have that contract honored in a court of law.  It's just assumed that if the contract is seemingly disadvantageous for the woman, she must have been coerced (mental abuse!) even if she pleads that she's okay with the arrangement.  The only way I'd consider adoption is if the kid was 16 or 17 years old, then the risk window would only be 1 or 2 years (at least in states where the NCP is not responsible for college tuition).  I would have liked to have been a real parent to a biological or adopted child, but my (justified) paranoia level is too high, after having been burned once and my current wife having considered solo parenting.  If nothing else, foster parenting will give us a chance to see how we interact together as parents before adopting a teenager.

What burns my ass is that this society claims that one parent is as good (or better) than two but in the courtroom (flip the coin) when it comes to the money....a child must have both parents (flip the coin back) a child does not need both parents in regards to visitation.

Futher, how is it "empowering" for a woman to choose to be a single mother but the cost is passed onto the father and the taxpayers who have no choice in the matter?

[The Invisible Male]

Thanks for the advice Aegis.  Believe me, I will have high standards for myself, especially when I think about how the reason many of these kids are in the foster system is because they didn't have a male role model.  My purpose would be to be the role model they maybe never had.  Single parents by choice just need to look at the foster system to stop kidding themselves into thinking that fathers are optional.

Edited for P4's last post:  Yes, that hypocrisy fits right in with what I just said.  How can single moms claim that a kid doesn't need a dad but then when it comes to child support, a dad is absolutely necessary    Just for money of course.  How do all these single parents by choice manage "just fine" without any child support?  If they can do it, so can divorced moms (that initiate the divorce about 70% of the time).  I think if the mother initiates the divorce for "irreconcilable differences" or some other such BS (not in a dangerous/truly abusive marraige), then if she initiates the divorce against the husbands wishes, she gets no child support.  She needs to make a tough decision, just like men are expected to do.  Like that'll ever happen.

Want a good (angry) laugh?  Check out the top of the NJ state child support homepage.  Their slogan is "New Jersey Child Support.  It's more than just money."  Riiiight.  It's aaaaall about money.

The first paragraph on the homepage statets "It is the responsibility of each parent - both mother and father - to make sure their child has enough food to eat, clothes to wear and a safe place to live."  Gee, sounds like thats all about money to me.

It really pisses me off how so much money and effort is spent on tracking every penny of income that the NCP has coming in, but the custodial parent doesn't have to account for a single dime they spend.  Part of "making sure the child has..." is to make the custodial parent prove the money was actually spent on the kid, or so logic would dictate. 

[Garak]

Thanks for the advice Aegis.  Believe me, I will have high standards for myself, especially when I think about how the reason many of these kids are in the foster system is because they didn't have a male role model.  My purpose would be to be the role model they maybe never had.  Single parents by choice just need to look at the foster system to stop kidding themselves into thinking that fathers are optional.

Edited for P4's last post:  Yes, that hypocrisy fits right in with what I just said.  How can single moms claim that a kid doesn't need a dad but then when it comes to child support, a dad is absolutely necessary    Just for money of course.  How do all these single parents by choice manage "just fine" without any child support?  If they can do it, so can divorced moms (that initiate the divorce about 70% of the time).  I think if the mother initiates the divorce for "irreconcilable differences" or some other such BS (not in a dangerous/truly abusive marraige), then if she initiates the divorce against the husbands wishes, she gets no child support.  She needs to make a tough decision, just like men are expected to do.  Like that'll ever happen.

Want a good (angry) laugh?  Check out the top of the NJ state child support homepage.  Their slogan is "New Jersey Child Support.  It's more than just money."  Riiiight.  It's aaaaall about money.

The first paragraph on the homepage statets "It is the responsibility of each parent - both mother and father - to make sure their child has enough food to eat, clothes to wear and a safe place to live."  Gee, sounds like thats all about money to me.

It really pisses me off how so much money and effort is spent on tracking every penny of income that the NCP has coming in, but the custodial parent doesn't have to account for a single dime they spend.  Part of "making sure the child has..." is to make the custodial parent prove the money was actually spent on the kid, or so logic would dictate. 

LOL, using the word logic when talking about child alimony. Very amusing. 

It is all about the money and it has always been. A tranference of wealth from men to women because someone has to fund womens liberation....right?

Doing it in the name of the children is almost foolproof and yeah...the enforcers (the state) gets rich too. What a scam.

See, the courts make sure that they stack the deck against men by ensuring that women get custody by default (it takes alot for a man to win custody). The reasons are:

1) Chivalry makes it easier for them to extort money from men than from women.

2) Men make more because men are less likely to quit work for convenience reasons and that means more money can be extorted.

That accountability for the use of the money is not required and since the money is paid directly to the mother...she can spend a portion or all of it on herself. 

Further, the mother benefits from the very same things that the child benefits from. The house, the car, etc... only the mother controls it all. Both of these probably paid for by the father before or after divorce and it was taken from him..in the best interests of the children.

Child Alimony is alimony which uses children as a justifiable shield. We all know that without that shield...womens liberation would be long since dead.

[The Invisible Male]

You're right, Pentium.  I need to quit calling it child support and start calling it child alimony.  Also, if statistics show that it only takes about $800 a month to raise a child (not sure if that figure covers college tuition), then there is no excuse for child alimony payments of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars (for the wealthy).  Clearly it's just disguised spousal support.  I really think courts are so misandric that they truly believe anytime there is a divorce that the father must have done something to f*ck it up and that he should be punished with punitive payments.

[Garak]

You're right, Pentium.  I need to quit calling it child support and start calling it child alimony.  Also, if statistics show that it only takes about $800 a month to raise a child (not sure if that figure covers college tuition), then there is no excuse for child alimony payments of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars (for the wealthy).  Clearly it's just hidden alimony.  I really think courts are so misandric that they truly believe anytime there is a divorce that the father must have done something to f*ck it up and that he should be punished with punitive payments.

Nah, I think the courts know very well what they are doing. They know most men are good fathers but they know that their obligation to the government is to make money. The family courts may as well be a business with legal punative power.

Misandry in the courts is no accident, it is done on purpose because it is all about the money.

[realman]

So getting back to my original topic... not much has been said about the "penis pinata"- do you guys find this product misandrist, or is it supposed to be taken in a "stupid, silly, immature, "sex is funny"" kind of way? Is the fun part simply taht it's a penis, or is the fun part beating said penis to bits? I can't help thinking the appeal to women is about smashing the likeness of a penis with a stick, as a "grrl power"/hit back at the patriarchy/"sometiems I wish I could really do this" kind of thing... maybe I've become a bit TOO cynical? But I still can't get past the idea that it's representative of mutilating a man's genitals, the level to which it does so may vary by the individual or group of woemn involved but I can't believe  that most women would see this product as a "postive" representative of maleness or male sexuality.

[The Invisible Male]

I agree, realman.  (Sorry for sidetracking the thread.)  I think at least at a subconscious level, it reinforces the idea that violence toward men is okay, but if you pointed that out to a "lady" who was partaking of that activity with the pinata, she would use the tired old defense of "lighten up, we're just having some fun."  I know for a fact that at many bachelorette parties there are likenesses of penises everywhere at the party--penis cakes, penis candles, penis straws, penis hairclips, etc.  I guess I'm okay with that, which is not really any different from the immaturity you see at bachelor parties.  It's the simulated violence that makes all the difference.  I've never heard of a bachelor party that had even simulated violence toward women (or any of their body parts for that matter.)  I suppose beating the penis pinata is supposed to be funny to them in the same way that "everyone" enjoys seeing a good kick or projectile to the groin (ala America's Funniest Home Videos).  I don't think it's funny (unless maybe Johnny Knoxville is doing it).

[Aegis]

So getting back to my original topic... not much has been said about the "penis pinata"- do you guys find this product misandrist, or is it supposed to be taken in a "stupid, silly, immature, "sex is funny"" kind of way? Is the fun part simply taht it's a penis, or is the fun part beating said penis to bits? I can't help thinking the appeal to women is about smashing the likeness of a penis with a stick, as a "grrl power"/hit back at the patriarchy/"sometiems I wish I could really do this" kind of thing... maybe I've become a bit TOO cynical? But I still can't get past the idea that it's representative of mutilating a man's genitals, the level to which it does so may vary by the individual or group of woemn involved but I can't believe  that most women would see this product as a "postive" representative of maleness or male sexuality.

I've never worked in or been into one of these joints.  I had a coworker once who moonlighted in one, and he never said anything about any piñatas.  Gonzokid has had direct experience, though.

When I googled "bachelorette party piñata", the ad copy was all upbeat, and nothing suggested grisly or violent overtones.  I'm not around these parties, so I just couldn't say one way or the other.

[ramcharger1985]

Anyway, getting back to the original topic, does anyone else see the sad irony in women acting in such selfish, sexist ways even as they are about to profess their "love" for a man?

Women don't love their husbands. They need men; so they tolerate us; I would go far to say that deep down, almost all (99%) of women hate us to some degree; they just "love" us until the meal ticket runs out, as seen in most divorced guys cases.  Don't believe me? Just listen in on any all-female conversations in any given environment.