Second highest in the liberal pantheon of victims is the women. With man-hating goodnessgollygee (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-04-09 06:26 AM
Original message
Child support - men don't like giving money to women they are no longer having sex with
Advertisements [?]This is the issue, right? There are some men who don't think they should have to support their own children because, in doing so, a woman they no longer have sex with will receive money from them.
I've heard men say, "I send the check and some of the money goes to things for her." I've heard men say that women should have to keep receipts and itemize where every cent goes so they know she isn't getting any groceries for herself or anything. Or using the money for rent. Even though that's part of what child support is for. (These would be men I used to work with - don't worry, I don't have friends like this.) My brother pays child support and seems quite happy to because he wants to do right by his children and feels it is his responsibility. I don't know the proportion of men see it the way my brother sees it compared to the ones who don't want to throw a dime even in the general direction of a woman who is no longer a sexual partner or sexual prospect.
This guy planned to kill either the mom or child in order to avoid paying. That's how big a deal it was to him. He'd rather go to prison for the rest of his life, or be executed, than give any money to the ex. And, yes, he killed his own child.
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20090103/49...
I've seen men send child support only to be totally cut off from their children, whom they still love. It's funny DUmmy, are all men scum except your brother.
Gormy Cuss (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's a crude reduction but not off-base for some men.
For some men there seems to be a need to control former sex partners through the money intended for child support. It's treating child support like alimony.
I wish that alimony was discussed as a standard part of child support orders. The bruised egos may understand the difference between the two if language like this were included in the order:
"Ms. X is not granted any support from Mr. Y. Support to little XY is ordered in the amount of $$$ with Ms. X as the person authorized to receive and expend these funds on housing, food, clothing and other expenses related to the well being of the child. It is understood that such expenditures do not need to be limited to discrete items for the child but may be used in partial support of the household."
It'd be nice to have a judge ask the noncustodial parent whether he/she understands the order too, but that assumes that the other parent is in court when the matter was decided.
Yes, and how often is it that these men know the woman is using the child support for herself instead of looking after their children in a manner he is comfortable with. If the Mr. Y has to shell out $600 a month for little XY , doesn't he have the right to know how little XY is being cared for.
BlueIris (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Many men expect responsibility-free sex no matter what. No birth control/STD prevention obligation.
No pleasing-the-partner obligation. No supporting-the-partner's-disproportionate-health-expenses obligation. And no child support obligation if a sexual relationship causes a pregnancy.
It's the definition of misogyny. Disgusting.
But hey, you're liberated right? That's what you wanted, right? You wanted to not have to rely on the man. You then deny the man the right to not have him rely on you?
ismnotwasm (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-09 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. What's interesting
In a sad, sick kind of way is historically, pregnant unmarried women were considered immoral, unfit, what have you. They were encouraged or forced to give their children up for adoption, rather than live "in shame". Men, of course never had to deal with this onus, never had to feel "shame" for their irresponsible ****ing, never had to feel irresponsible either. Could just deny paternity.
So marriage itself was sort of a contract for women to have sex, willing or not, without being a slut, to bear children, often over and over without choice, to submit to their husbands, who generally controlled all the finances, all that old shit. And it wasn't all that long ago either.
It's not surprising to me giving the history of women, sex, marriage and choice that certain men have a just walk away attitude, or that they consider child support "payment" for whatever reason, rather than a total and complete responsibility for their side of the DNA donation.
Many men don't feel that way and are responsible. This particular case in seems we're dealing with a psychopath who is a straight up is a representative for patriarchy..
Women also used to have a rule about not touching the merchandise unless you bought it. Often strictly enforced by father's and chaperones. Do you really think that women used to be forced into the bedroom by their husbands at any greater rate than today? Feminists went out of their way to make it okay to "walk away". Women can choose abortion or child support, where is the man's choice? Do we need a menist movement to enjoy "reproductive rights"?
JJ (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-23-09 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Not just men.
My ex-wife refuses to pay child support, and has spent more on attorney's fees to harass me through the court, than she owes, not an insignificant amount either, upwards of $12,000.
Scumbags come in both genders.
You wandered into the man-bashing forum and dared to say women do the same thing? Run for your life man!
lukasahero (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-23-09 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Perhaps you didn't notice the name of the group to which you are posting
You may wish to read the "Welcome" message on the first page of the forum.
Your lucky JJ, you escaped this time. Only sniping fire instead of the tombstone for this hanging offense.
