Single Mother Hot Patato

[The Gonzman]

I have no sympathy for them.  That's what they get.

[Galt]

I have zero sympathy for the women, but sympathy for the kids - they didn't ask to be in that situation, and they can't - as minors - do a whole lot about it.  The problem is that many of these women use the kids as pawns to get money from society, men etc.  And it works, because of the kids.

[Daymar]

I kind of wonder about what kind of people these kids are going to turn into when they get older.

[Pernicious]

I feel that the children that are unwittingly used as pawns in the manipulative society today, they will be future proponents of the "me, me, me society."

It will hard for society to reconcile differences between the genders, when people will only be looking out for #1 (themselves).

[LSBeene]

Dan I have NEVER heard of this!!!!!


This is INSANE!!  Let me get this straight, the kids are not his, but he "bonded" with them *(what a BASTARD), but while HE was bonding with the KIDS the MOTHER could not STAND him, so they split up.  Now this guy who DATED a woman is financially responsible for children who are not his, that he did not adopt, and whom he will have little legal recourse when asking for visitation.  This is FREAKING INSANE!!!!!

Wow, the shit you learn at this and other men's sites.  If I tried to tell people at work this "story-line" they would think I had gone over the edge in my Men's Activism.  

Dan ... find a supporting story for this so I can archive it for my writings.

Steven

[Daymar]

Your writings?

[LSBeene]

Once again I go into my Child Support Accountability rant.  This is EXACTLY why we need to make "Child Support" an accountable amount of money.  Below is cut and pasted from an earlier post:

 Now on child support here is my position. 10% of the money can be a "slush" fund. The rest is accounted for in receipts and in the use of the money the NCP has some input.  Also a Debit Card would be a useful way to keep track of the money.
     "Should mom have to write a check each time she buys a happy meal!?" No, that is what the 10% slush fund is for. Also, DAD is not the only one SUPPORTING the CHILD. MOM is supposed to be a contributor to the child's welfare. If dad's money is used to buy the clothes, pay for the school, etc etc then MOM can pay for the little things. The really ignorant thing is how divorced moms think that DAD should pay for RENT. Sorry cupcake that is what 1/2 the divorce settlement and ALIMONY is for. If it's a single mom, get a J-O-B. Your uterous is not a slot machine hitting triple 7's that drops money from a slot. CHILD SUPPORT is for the CHILD. Not for mom to buy a dress for work, get a car, or any other thing. And the idea that using child support money for cars, business suits, and such is wrong in 2 ways:
1) why shouldn't DAD get that money, so he can get a better job and look professional at work
2) put the money into an untouchable trust for the child's education. UNTOUCHABLE period.
     And I will tell you WHY this idea will be fought tooth and nail. Most moms, even the good ones, DO spend money on the children, but whatever is left over (hey, its "not much anyways" - self-justification) is spent on whatever mom sees fit. And once there IS accountability it's going to be as obvious as a pile of coal on a ballroom floor that the amount women ask for is excessive. The "extra" left over may not seem like so much, but maybe if its "not that much" the mom should give it back to the dad or put it into a college fund. An UNTOUCHABLE fund.
       It's one thing that today's women are afraid of: Accountability.

L Steven Beene II

[tricycle]

I kind of wonder about what kind of people these kids are going to turn into when they get older.

Thats something that concerns me, these kids seem to be growing up learning that men are just walking wallets and that manipulation is a perfectly valid action.

It's really sad, any woman that pulls this sort of stunt should be ashamed of herself.

[John]

"Thats crazy.I didn't even know about that.Who are these morons that are allowing these laws to be passed?"

As far as I am concerned us guys everywhere are to blame for letting this
kind of finanical rape of men to go on un challenged.

[nebulousone]

Steven, I posted a few links regarding the paternity laws in California, we're one of the states that forces a man to support a child that isn't his.  Those should be a good place to start.

[bluegrass]

I kind of wonder about what kind of people these kids are going to turn into when they get older.

Thats something that concerns me, these kids seem to be growing up learning that men are just walking wallets and that manipulation is a perfectly valid action.

It's really sad, any woman that pulls this sort of stunt should be ashamed of herself.

It is sad and yes those women should be ashamed.  It's funny how they argue they need the money for the kids, but in many instances, holding Dad to such a high judgement financially actually ensures that, collectively, the kids spend say 40% of their childhood under financial duress -- depending on how much time they spend at Dad's house.

But it's not the women really -- it's the government.  As long as there is marriage and divorce, there will always be disgruntled ex-spouses.  If gender roles were reversed and men held all the cards in divorce/custody/child support, many of them would be just as bad.  Difference is, the government provides the muscle to carry out the revenge.  It's that part that must be changed.

[neoteny]

[...] But it's not the women really -- it's the government.  As long as there is marriage and divorce, there will always be disgruntled ex-spouses.  If gender roles were reversed and men held all the cards in divorce/custody/child support, many of them would be just as bad.  Difference is, the government provides the muscle to carry out the revenge.  It's that part that must be changed.

Fully agreed.

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

Dan ... find a supporting story for this so I can archive it for my writings.

Steven

Well Steve, I'm not Dan, but here you go:

http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=mindelle+jacobs&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=fNa2a.15496%245l.1918835%40twister.midsouth.rr.com&rnum=2

Notice how Mindelle says, "So get used to it.".  Blah.  She doesn't even realize what rulings like this do and how they actually disenfranchize women.

[tricycle]

But it's not the women really -- it's the government. As long as there is marriage and divorce, there will always be disgruntled ex-spouses. If gender roles were reversed and men held all the cards in divorce/custody/child support, many of them would be just as bad. Difference is, the government provides the muscle to carry out the revenge. It's that part that must be changed.

The government might provide people with the way to do this, but it doesn't mean that they have to do it.

I have always thought that using the government to get 'revenge' is a terrible thing to do.
Yes, there will usually be a disgruntled ex - amicable break-ups are pretty rare.

I think that parents should try to put their own feelings aside and make decisions based on what is going to be best for the child/ren. I do know that doing that can be really hard, but it would be nice to think that people who make the decision to have children would try to not use them as pawns in a break-up.

[bluegrass]

Tri-

Unfortunately, those types of people will be the last ones to ever look in the mirror and say, "I'm using my child as a pawn."  If they were able to do that, these situations wouldn't occur -- and I'd hypothesize that their marriages probably wouldn't break up either.

Taking custody of children away from parents who haven't done anything wrong is truly an astounding development in a country that led the way to freedom and democracy.  I often think to myslef that the revolutionary war for independence was declared, fought and won over much less than this.