Does the 13th amendment make forced Child support illegal?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Ah, and the abortion issue finally sneaks its way into yet another thread about paternity issues.


The "she can abort, so why should I be accountable" argument was done to death in this thread already. My thoughts about the subject are already on record there.

But the premise of this thread does not involve abortion. To try and make it so would be to move this thread off topic. This OP involved discussion of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, or:


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Source

IE the OP is attempting to equate the enforcement of child support as slavery. In my opinion this is simply an appeal to emotion and fallacious as a married person is legally bound to provide for their offspring. Divorce does not remove this burden.

~Heff

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Actually abortion and other forms of autonomous birth control are relevant. Since males lack autonomous birth control while women do have autonomous control of their reproduction, and since women disproportionately retain custody any law's based upon the non-custodial parents(fathers) is a defacto Bill of attainder, something outlawed in the constitution(any law designed to target a single person or a single group).

Because women have such final control, the ultimate veto, it put's men into a unique position as a group due to lack of rights and ability(as even a male who is raped is still liable for child support). This defacto "Bill of Attainder opens boy's and men up for intentional entrapment and enslavement in violation of the 13 Amendment by any woman who is able to acquire a man's sperm by any means what so ever. Even if he stored it in a sperm storage for future private use and a crazy ex broke in and stole + did a turkey baster, the male(even a boy about to undergo chemo) would be held financially liable under threat of force and internment by a "Court of Law" to fund some one else's choice.



We are not debating if a man should or shouldn't have to support his children, but he should have a choice in the matter. Heck when you add in Paternity Fraud and how if your married, she cheats your still liable for child support it becomes self evident that Child Support is slavery. And all the other injustices(guy's having thousands upon thousands of dollars stolen{money=survival, food, clothing and shelter) by some chick five states over who got a hold of his social security number with the aid of the courts. Look at what happened to that guy up in New Hampshire. Lost his job in this recession, Judge wouldn't lower Child Support so it was in excess of his Unemployment check, and when he was arrested the Guards beat him to death. He was labeled a dead beat and it was swept under the rug.



Legislating moral issue's has only brought pain and suffering to the world. I am sure the southern slave owners and a few southern ministers used moral arguments to justify slavery of African Americans. After all they had children to feed and clothe too.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Once again, the law says only the unilateral choice of a female can create a child that requires 20 years of support.

It really is that simple.

Something else that really is that simple... Keep it in your pants, unless you are with a woman you trust in a committed relationship!
Contrary to popular belief, no method of contraception is foolproof. They all have a failure rate. That woman you accuse of lying when she turns up preggers and insists she was on the pill, may well be telling the truth.
Conversely, if you want the child, and she aborts it, why did she do that? She must have her reasons (mad though they may be), and even if they're economic that shows you didn't have a stable, or even a real relationship with her - and she doesn't trust you to stay around and raise that child...
Don't whinge. Do something about it. It's up to you!
Vicky



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


I payed child support for three kids,2 different mothers. Not only did I pay for the support,that didnt go to my children,I payed for fees to process the paperwork,and fees that wernt stipulated under child support,like clothing,medical,food,etc.... all the things a normal father who loves his kids would do,regardless if someone is telling you ,you need to do this,and its the law. Child Support is a billion dollar industry. If you pay your support,it most likely takes two weeks before that actual money is even sent to the mother/father. Meaning,it sits in the agency's account collecting interest. Think of how much money is collected in that way. The laws are different,from state to state,country to country. My suggestion is to join a fathers advocacy group.
Groups

By the way,Fathers are being looked at with kinder eyes,by judges nowadays.
Happy ending to my story,I fought both ex's to get all my kids.Not only was my chances 1 in 20k to get one child,I fought for all three. Guess what,I dont receive ANY child support from the mothers,nor do I want any. I dont want or need the system in my life.


What a whinger!
Sorry, I have no sympathy whatsoever, and thanks for confirming my suspicion as to why most men want custody of their children.
Actually, from what I have read about the USA (Phyllis Chesler's book for one) you're havering when you say your chances were 1 in 20 to get one kid. Chesler's study showed that males have an 80% chance of getting custody. Unless things have changed radically since the 1980s, you'd have had to be an axe murderer not to have got your kids.
The chances are, they won't thank you for ripping them away from their mothers just to save money.

Vicky

Not true. I dont know where you live,but the State I live in gives the mother ALL the rights. The state didnt care if I was homeless,didnt see my children,or ate beans everyday. Not only that,the mother of 2 of my children,was given,count this,5 times the chance to get off of drugs. She failed to do so. All 5 times. Even then,the court was still iffy about giving me my children.If you read my prior posts,you will see I get NO child support from my exes. They dont even call their children,to see how they are doing. I live on NO state aid,nor am I a burden to anyone. I am a proud father,playing the mother role also. Its not about money,never was. But it is to the Child Support agency,and those mothers thatr didnt give a damn about their children. They are the box my kids came in.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I love it when some people think that they can Judge a book,by its cover,or preface.My children were abused physically,and mentally by the mothers boyfriends. Spent ALL the Child Support I gave them,on drugs,and trips. I had to supply my children with food,because the mothers decided to spend the Support on other things,like the boyfriends car,or the trip to Jamaica. Many times I had to pick my children up from the Police Station. Hard thing to see,when your Children are 5 and 7. For ANYONE who thinks that a Custody battle is all about the money,they are sadly mistaken. Its about the Children,and whats best for them. Its too bad that some people make it out to be something it is not. Its also too bad,that the Agency's truly dont care,and are willing to give Children right back into the arms,of those who are willing to hurt them. There is a thing called dead beat mothers.I know,I have two of them.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
And for those who want to paint a bleak picture for WHO gets the custody of the children,heres a REAL statistic.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers.

Get your Facts straight.

A women doesnt have to prove shes fit to take care of the children. Its assumed. The Father,on the other hand,has to go through hell to get his children. From investigations,to work experience,to everything a Agency can imagine,and put a Father through. Yes,1 in 20k to get my kids,and I beat the system,by playing those broken rules,put in place.
edit on 1-2-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Sorry vicky, but your source of information is so far off, it not even funny? Where you get off, using a liberally biased book as your only source of information only further suggests that you are unable to conjure up a constructive thought on your own. Here are some known facts for you to ponder:


61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers

46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support
66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full-time

46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance
37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation

50% of mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children. --See "Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly



There are: 11,268,000 total U.S. custodial mothers and 2,907,000 total U.S. custodial fathers --Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991





Take note in the next evidence:


Child custody for fathers following a divorce is one of the most important aspects of a dissolving marriage. Throughout history the legal presumptions about child custody for fathers has changed significantly. Before the twentieth century children were regarded as the property of their father. Under common law, child custody for fathers was commonly awarded, as children were considered a father's rightful property.
A major shift occurred after this period in history, as family courts came to favor mothers in child custody
As a result of this view on custody for fathers and mothers, moms are still awarded custody in seventy percent of all child custody cases. Joint custody for fathers and mothers is awarded about twenty percent of the time. Family law statistics show that sole custody for fathers is awarded less than ten percent of the time. Statistics from 1991 indicate that forty percent of all child custody cases allowed no custody for fathers, barring them from both visitation and access rights.




Please take note in the above statistic:



moms are still awarded custody in seventy percent of all child custody cases.


As well as this:




Statistics from 1991 indicate that forty percent of all child custody cases allowed no custody for fathers, barring them from both visitation and access rights



So what was that you were saying? Are you sure about your source? Are you absolutely sure?

First, it wasn't one book, but several (about the USA and New Zealand), and my own experience, in running a support group for non-custodial mothers. The fact that you refer to it as a "liberal" book says volumes.
Some more comments:
1. "61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers " - define child abuse in this context. I know Daddy's rights groups insist that's true, but objectively true figures show otherwise.
2. "46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support" From the most recent figures I have seen, in the USA women earn around 60c for every dollar men earn. Actually, that figure might be even lower, given your economy is currently wrecked...
3. "66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full-time " See point 2. I know that in NZ, the under/uemployment rate for women is considerably higher than for men, and that's absolutely certain to be the case in the USA.
4. "46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance" See 2 and 3 above.
5. " 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation " Given what happened with Hilary Morgan, any mother who denies 'visitation' is in for a world of hurt, therefore I assume it's the Courts that have denied visitation. The man should ask himself why? Did he beat the mother? Did he hurt the kids?
6. " 50% of mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children. --See "Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly" See number 5, and I'll add some of my own experience. My first ex (AntiChrist/Devil/actually just an alkie) won custody of my son when the poor kid was 3 years old (by kidnapping him! Some ******* judge decided that posession was 9 points of the law, and that as my parents were dead, he'd leave G., with his father.
That father didn't want my son, but he wanted to avoid paying child support. So he got himself a new live-in (he didn't marry her), and she moved her 8 kids in. My son was treated like the runt of the litter (he was the youngest) and bullied unmercifully. The ex and his new "lady" spent the next 10 years trying to screw $$ out of me, to pay for her kids' holidays etc, and when I had a new relationship and my second son, they punished me by refusing me access (visitation) for a year and a half - knowing that I couldn't afford to go back to court to get my rights. (It's a civil matter here.)
So, I think there was definitely no value in the son's further contact with his father. The repercussions still hurt us all, 30 years later, and long after the death of the new 'lady'...
Vicky



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

What exactly does your tirade have to do with the thirteenth amendment? Besides seeking to derail a thread with rhetoric, you've accomplished nothing here.


You'll notice a link to an appropriate thread that that argument in my previous post.

~Heff

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Do you only read a couple words you like and ignore the rest?

There's an exception. Thus, slavery is still allowed - within the exception.

Your child support is both a moral and legal obligation.

You don't want to pay the support - don't **** in the first place.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


I understand why you are bitter. You went through the same thing that I went through. But dont be bitter. Its best that someone who doesnt love your child,not be in the picture. I go through it all the time,with my children. I havnt gotten remarried either. Not untill the Children are grown up. I couldn't disappoint my kids again. You see,not every Father is bad. Yes,there are ALOT of bad fathers out there. I cringe at the ones I saw in court. But there are alot that ARE good. I wont hold animosity for all the females in the world. I figured I got 2 bad apples,in the bunch...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 



Moral,for sure. Its funny how the Government can Intercept Federal Tax Returns,for the delinquency of failure to pay child support. I wonder how that might be construed based on the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Adamanteus
So if the law says that, then penalizing someone for something they had no choice in is in fact unjust from a legal stand point?


Correct, can you think of any other occasion that the government holds you equally responsible under threat of jail for the unilateral choice of someone else?
edit on 1-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)


Oh give me a break. You have a choice. If you're sleeping with someone you don't want to have a child with, or who is crazy enough to go off her pills to "get herself a man", take some responsibility for birth control. Condom, spermicide, abstinence. Put the weenie enjoyment over putting on a raincoat, and you've made your choice.

That said, custody laws indeed need revision. I worked a tax desk for 10 years and wanted to slap half the moms dragging their offspring in to dig into the public pocket. New cellphones, manicures, fancy rims, but complaints about the amount of tax handout & child support they don't get. I really agree with the poster that said there should be an audit procedure in place to make sure child support is spent on the child. I had too many noncustodial parents paying out the wazoo then, when they had the child, found them dirty, ragged and in need of clothing.

When my parents divorced my dad got custody and this was back in 1980.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1


Not true. I dont know where you live,but the State I live in gives the mother ALL the rights. The state didnt care if I was homeless,didnt see my children,or ate beans everyday. Not only that,the mother of 2 of my children,was given,count this,5 times the chance to get off of drugs. She failed to do so. All 5 times. Even then,the court was still iffy about giving me my children.If you read my prior posts,you will see I get NO child support from my exes. They dont even call their children,to see how they are doing. I live on NO state aid,nor am I a burden to anyone. I am a proud father,playing the mother role also. Its not about money,never was. But it is to the Child Support agency,and those mothers thatr didnt give a damn about their children. They are the box my kids came in.

What a creepy comment "They are the box my kids came in" - I don't have to wonder what it does to psyche of a child whose father hates and verbally abuses its mother - I see the consequences every day, with my older son, whose father got custody and lied like a rug about me - first I was dead, then I had abandoned him, etc. Your sons will hate women, your daughters will hate themselves.
How many freaking exes do you have? That's a sign in and of itself, that women with children should avoid you...
Fathers can't be mothers. All they can do is play-act, and as I know from experience as well as my reading, they usually get one girlfriend after another to play the mother role. (Or they use Granny, as my ex did. Having brought him up to be a wife-beating alkie, she was a great substitute mother - not!)
Be honest with yourself. It's the only way your kids will even tolerate you when they grow up - unless you are a really good liar! (Like the man who kidnapped his daughters, and took them to another state, in defiance of a custody award to their mother. They were found years later, and one of the daughters still refused to believe that Mom hadn't run off with another man, aborted her siblings etc - even when she saw the police report!)
There was a newspaper article about all this, a few years back, which is how I know. AFAIK, the kidnapping father was in Florida with the daughters, and a succession of 'step-mothers' for them. I think he actually committed fraud against one of the new women, as well.
Oh BTW, before asking me what state I am in, you should have read my location. I don't know how to make it any more visible I am not in the USA, praise God...
Vicky
edit on 2/2/11 by Vicky32 because: To add something... and fix errors caused by haste



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
if america is a godly nation child support is an abomination. i still dont understand how accepting slavery as a law to pass to prohibit; prohibits its functions. so i would say no the 13 amendment does not make forced child support illegal nor any other forms of servitude that are not implicitly stated as prohibited.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Why is it a creepy comment? Ive heard "sperm donor" so many times,come out of womens mouths,I thought I would make up one for those Dead Beat Moms out there. Like I said. Its obvious your bitter. Usually its those who couldnt fight to keep their children,and Lost.

On Topic.

The Moral obligation,minus the Constitution is what needs to be the real focus. Those that have Children,shouldnt force society to take care of them. Man/Woman up,is what needs to be done.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
And for those who want to paint a bleak picture for WHO gets the custody of the children,heres a REAL statistic.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers.

Get your Facts straight.

A women doesnt have to prove shes fit to take care of the children. Its assumed. The Father,on the other hand,has to go through hell to get his children. From investigations,to work experience,to everything a Agency can imagine,and put a Father through. Yes,1 in 20k to get my kids,and I beat the system,by playing those broken rules,put in place.
edit on 1-2-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

Actually as Chesler pointed out, them that don't ask, don't get. Most men don't ask, so they don;t get (my second ex, actually was a Family Court lawyer, who helped every man who ever asked him, to get sole custody. But in my case, he said he actually didn't want our son, because having a child would get in the way of his workaholism!
I give him credit for his honesty. He it was who told me that in NZ, every man who asks, unless he has actually killed someone, gets sole or joint custody of his wife's children.
The figure in the USA was, in the 1980s, that 80-90% of men who sought custody, got it.
Oh and Sonny, too right I am bitter! Yes, I fought for custody and I lost. I lost because I was 23 years old, and my only family in NZ, consisted of one teenage sister, and a brother and sister who were still children themselves. The ex had parents who were skilled liars. The judge actually said that he was awarding custody to J., an abusive alcoholic with drug convictions, because he had parents to support him, and was much older than me. I lost also, because the curse of the USA struck again - the film Kramer vs Kramer had just come out here the year before and the judge was a fan, or so my lawyer told me... Personally, I think he might have had mummy or ex-wife issues himself.
My son, the subject of this custody battle has truly got serious mummy issues himself, having been ripped away from his mother by a father who ran down and insulted his mother, aunts and uncles all his young life.
Vicky
edit on 2/2/11 by Vicky32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Debating Child Support with women is like debating slavery with the other slave owners of the old peculiar institution.

We live in an age where the old blind "white supremacy" mindset became replaced with an equally blind "female supremacy" mindset.

There is no real point to it. The debate will just boil down to "because I said so" type logic, regardless of the cruel realities of the situation or legal ramifications.

It is the same pattern throughout history, and it always ends badly.

Notice how for women abortion for any reason is justifiable, how women can sleep around as much as they want while guy's have to :keep it in their pants unless they get married and their wives tell them to take it out. It is no different then older social norms that women had to deal with. They have a "It is our time" type mentality and have as much moral and ethical regard for men and boy's as the KKK had for blacks in the old south.

The whole premise of their logic resides on a social attainder against men enforced through dubious "legal" Bills of Attainder(trying to use the exception to the rule to disprove the rule in regards to men being able to get custody and women "having" to pay child support), where men and boy's have no choice whatsoever inevitably leading to slavery(as women only have freedom in this regard). But because it benefits women they don't mind it, and to them they view it as their "right"(along side Birth control, abortion, access to sperm banks).

As proof that child support is inherently a Bill of Attainder, and because it is such creates a situation where those effected by the Bill of Attainder become defacto indentured servants, peons, in violation of the 13th Amendment, look at the facts.

Men have custody about 10% of the time. In that 10%, the non-custodial mother is 40% likely to be a dead beat parent. How often do we hear about it in the news? How often are women arrested or have their drivers licenses revoked for non payment? Heck the amount women who are non-custodial parents have to pay is most of the time a lower percentage of their pre-tax income then the guy would of paid. And every time Child Support has been ruled "unconstitutional" was in situations where the non-custodial parent was the chick.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Basically I've gathered from this thread that the 13th amendment does support that forced child support is un constitutional but seeing as how no one has taken this to the highest courts that it would cost you an arm and a leg to see it through and if you had that much money it'd be better spent just paying the ordered support or getting a high priced lawyer and getting custody of the children yourself. Unless of course you want to go down in history as the Jerk whose case let millions of dead beat fathers get off paying for their own failure to properly protect themselves.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by sonnny1
And for those who want to paint a bleak picture for WHO gets the custody of the children,heres a REAL statistic.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), nearly 75 percent of all child custody awards are made to the mother. Only about 10 percent of child custody awards are made to fathers.

Get your Facts straight.

A women doesnt have to prove shes fit to take care of the children. Its assumed. The Father,on the other hand,has to go through hell to get his children. From investigations,to work experience,to everything a Agency can imagine,and put a Father through. Yes,1 in 20k to get my kids,and I beat the system,by playing those broken rules,put in place.
edit on 1-2-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

Actually as Chesler pointed out, them that don't ask, don't get. Most men don't ask, so they don;t get (my second ex, actually was a Family Court lawyer, who helped every man who ever asked him, to get sole custody. But in my case, he said he actually didn't want our son, because having a child would get in the way of his workaholism!
I give him credit for his honesty. He it was who told me that in NZ, every man who asks, unless he has actually killed someone, gets sole or joint custody of his wife's children.
The figure in the USA was, in the 1980s, that 80-90% of men who sought custody, got it.
Oh and Sonny, too right I am bitter! Yes, I fought for custody and I lost. I lost because I was 23 years old, and my only family in NZ, consisted of one teenage sister, and a brother and sister who were still children themselves. The ex had parents who were skilled liars. The judge actually said that he was awarding custody to J., an abusive alcoholic with drug convictions, because he had parents to support him, and was much older than me. I lost also, because the curse of the USA struck again - the film Kramer vs Kramer had just come out here the year before and the judge was a fan, or so my lawyer told me... Personally, I think he might have had mummy or ex-wife issues himself.
My son, the subject of this custody battle has truly got serious mummy issues himself, having been ripped away from his mother by a father who ran down and insulted his mother, aunts and uncles all his young life.
Vicky
edit on 2/2/11 by Vicky32 because: (no reason given)


The 80's was 20-30 years ago. Back when the Berlin wall still stood and nuclear annihilation between the USSR and the USA was a close reality. Why not use statistics from the 90's or the last decade? Why rest your entire argument on unverifiable emotional hearsay and outdated facts? As well as paranoid delusions(Judge was out to get me because of a movie) and pure conjecture(he had to of had mommy issues)?


edit on 2-2-2011 by korathin because: Corrected "USSR"



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
Basically I've gathered from this thread that the 13th amendment does support that forced child support is un constitutional but seeing as how no one has taken this to the highest courts that it would cost you an arm and a leg to see it through and if you had that much money it'd be better spent just paying the ordered support or getting a high priced lawyer and getting custody of the children yourself. Unless of course you want to go down in history as the Jerk whose case let millions of dead beat fathers get off paying for their own failure to properly protect themselves.


There is one thing everyone forgets. Pre-Recession only 10% of non custodial fathers where dead beats. Of that 10%, 5% are dead or severely disabled and the remainder 5% are really, really poor. They couldn't do much if they wanted too.

Most guy's would voluntarily assist with their child. It is not about being "the Jerk". I had an acquaintance growing up who had a sleep around problem(had kids with 3 different chicks). I have to give him credit he worked his arse off to support them only for the mothers to take the check and go on a personnel shopping spree while their children practically wore rags. He said &(*^^* it and used the money to directly support them(till he was arrested and went to jail).

Slavery is slavery. Not only is it a grave moral and ethic sin in the present, but a traitorous betrayal of the future. It prevents growth in a society, it is a quick fix easy way out.
That is the reason why traditionalist support it in an almost mindless manner, because by supporting it your preventing change. Because let's face it, without child support women will have to work a lot harder. That means upgrading or building daycare systems, building new social norms.

Once that happens it would become a heck of a lot easier for men to get custody, so the concept of "women and children" gets shredded and turns into a more human, egalitarian mindset. Traditionalist men can't handle the notion of women being equal to men as human beings( I mean real equality not woman worship, but seeing women you meet throughout your day as "just another person") because it makes their chauvinism(look at Bill O'Rielly as a text book traditionalist chauvinist) hard to defend from a personnel ego based stand point.

Traditionalist women tend to view it as it is their right, with a tinge of "female chauvinism". The only real difference between traditional female mindset and a feminist "progressive" female mindset is that one prefers to be driven while the other prefers to drive, but both pick the end destination.

Technically Child Support is against most Feminist ideology but after failure of the ERA feminism was co-opted by the hateful variant known as "Gender Feminism". In order to achieve the same thing an ERA would achieve they are just following the traditionalist lead as a mechanism to beat men and boy's down so women won't be able to rely on them(make being a SAHM not an option). There are so many angles, I could go on and on, but if we allow slavery to stay on our shores it will lead to our, or our descendants downfall.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


I wouldnt be too hard on her. Shes angry,because the system failed her.

Moms Can Be Deadbeats Too


Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.

That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.

Of course, the problem of deadbeat dads remains a serious one. Many more men than women have to pay child support, making the overall number of deadbeat dads much greater.
edit on 2-2-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join