In-Reply-To: <199512172203.OAA18174@iway1.iw.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Sun, 17 Dec 1995 msmithbe@iway1.iw.net wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Rex Ballard  
> wrote:
> >Question:  Did you file assault charges?  
> 	Yes, I filed a report.  
> 
> >The point here is not what you personally believe. 
> 	Actually, it was exactly the point.  I had been 
> accused of being mysogonist.  As I stated previously, my 
> original "conversation" with John Knight was concluded in 
> late September.  Someone, out of boredom, spite, or 
> whatever, has reposted my letters and stirred the whole 
> thing up again.
> 
> >These are not the people posting to this list.  
> 	I except that, but I must insist, I never subscribed 
> to your list.  John Knight subscribed me to it.  I must pay 
> for my internet connection; it is through my home.  I was 
> angry and the high volume of mail that was generated without 
> my permission.
> 
> >Since bounty hunters are not officers of the government, 
> >they are able to invade privacy, use prostitutes to trap 
> their victims, 
> 	Sorry, very little sympathy from me here.  I have 
> been divorced since June of 1992 from my second husband.  He 
> was ordered to pay $300 per month, and has never paid a 
> dime.  I have begged him to visit his children, or call 
> them, or write them.  I have remained in the same town--his 
> home town--since our divorce.  He has no other children to 
> care for, and has remarried a woman who is sterile.  He 
> refuses to work in order to get out of paying child support. 
>  I wish someone would seize his butt and put him in jail.  
> I've cut my own wood to heat our home and sold plasma to buy 
> snowboots from Goodwill.  One can argue a law on principle 
> all one wants, but if one intentionally violate a law on 
> principle one must be willing to take responsibility for the 
> consequences of doing so.   

I have a sister in a similar place.  After marrying him, having
his children (twins), and helping him through college, she discovered he 
was already married.  No child support, no alimony, not even an
FBI investigation of the Bigamy (his first wife was in Seattle).
Diane has had to make some hard choices, like moving in with parents, 
getting section 8 housing, and getting an education at home.

The welfare roles are packed with women who bought the "fairy tail 
marriage" where everybody lives "happily ever after".  It is only when 
the Drugs, alcohol, and violent lifestyle becomes part of the home life, 
that the harse reality arises.

You stated earlier, that your husband was abusive.  Suppose your husband
was gentle and kind, but you fell in love with someone else and it didn't 
work out.  Would you expect the $300 in support?  Would you want him in 
jail.  Remember, the key distinction between your issues and those raised
in the FATHERS list, is that there are no distinctions between the 
wife-beater, and the generous cuckhold (husband of a straying wife).

> >Even though 75% of all marriages end up in divorce, over 
> half within 4 >years, public schools don't teach "Marriage 
> Law", "Marital >Relationships", or "Child Rearing".
> 	You're absolutely correct on this.  And they should 
> teach those things, but when?  Every person should graduate 
> from school knowing basic academics, as well as how to cook, 
> wire a lamp, change a tire, and develop healthy 
> relationships.  As an educator, I can slip some of those 
> more practical day-to-day things in my lessons, but healthy 
> relationships is difficult to address without a seperate 
> curricula. 

Not only that, but when you get into the sticky issues of sex and 
sexuality, or marital law, you hit a wall of opposition from the 
religeous right, and from the feminist left.  How many men would sign a 
contract which stipulated the terms of the UDM, if they had read it 
before they signed the license?  Very few.  In some states they even 
strike down prenuptuals if the breakdown comes to the witholding of sex 
(it is ruled as prostitution, therefore illegal).

> >In fact, many school systems still >excluded men from home 
> >economics programs.
> 	Please examine your statistics.  According to my 
> information, as a secondary education major, no gender is 
> excluded from a program in public schools.
This was back in 1968-1974.  I wanted to take home economics (I was 
already a great cook, and wanted to be a "Mr Mom").

> >The Democrat solution is to provide AFDC, medicare, SSDI, 
> >and medicaide >to every single parent family.  This is 
> >funded by turning DYFSS into a>collection agency which will 
> >pocket 60% of the "Child support" it >collects, 
> 	To be more correct, a woman on AFDC is allowed to 
> keep her child support.  Her AFDC benefits are then 
> decreased by whatever amount she has received.  If it is 
> found that she receives child support and fails to report 
> it, she is prosecuted.  I know a woman who did this.  She 
> attempted to defraud the government, and deserved the 
> results.  It is unfortunate that AFDC is abused as a system, 
> however, it is necessary to safeguard the needs of the 
> children.  

The sticky part is that when a woman goes on AFDC (in Colorado), she is 
required to sign a paper which stipulated 3 conditions:
	1 - All past and present back child support goes to DYFSS (bad news if 
		you are applying after trying to get it yourself for 5 years).
	2 - All future payments are paid to DYFSS
	3 - DYFSS is only required to pay the amount equal to what AFDC 
		would pay. (Even if your judgement gives you $1000/month, 
		you only get $400/month)

> >defining all income paid to the mother as taxable "Child 
> >support", and putting mothers who are no longer eligible 
> >for AFDC on >"Disability", VESID, CAPRA,...  Of course they 
> >also ignore the men's >clothes hanging in the closet, 
> 	Since when is a single mother required to be chaste? 
> Using lovers, live-in or not, as a reason to punish mothers, 
> would open up all kinds of opportunities for men to control 
> their ex-wives.

The issue here is that a women will represent herself as helpless and 
destitute to the courts while living with some man who has not taken the 
same degree of parental responsiblity as the father.  The result is that 
Non-custodial fathers end up living in poverty and solitude (would you
want to marry a man who only had 25% of his income?).  As a NCP, I have 
to make 3 times what my wife's husband makes to live in a room that is 
smaller than her kitchen.  My prospects for remarriage are dismal at best.

When you encourage "dead-beats" to avoid paternal responsibilities 
(legal) and you encourage mothers to find the men who are "working off 
the books", collecting disability, and enjoying all of the benefits of a 
marriage with none of the legal responsibilities, you promote the entire 
concept of "responsibility is for suckers".  It's very common in the 
lower economic classes, and very strong in the lower middle classes.

Kids learn the message "Why should I work?, I'll get marry a guy who can 
pay a big child support check", or better "Why should I work?, Ill just 
marry a woman who is getting a big support check".

Imagine this:

Your husband, after beating you, witholding money, and forcing you 
to go to work 60 your weeks, leaves with the children.  Then you get a 
supenea from a lawyer stating that you must pay 50% of your after-tax 
income to your children and that you will only be able to have supervised 
visitation for two hours every two weeks.  You must also leave the house 
you bought, but you must continue to make the mortgage payments.  Your 
savings, checking, and retirement fund are cleaned out.  You then get a 
bill from his lawyer for $10,000 which you must pay.  You also have to 
turn over your car ... everything but your clothes.

When you apply for a loan to get your own car (your ex now has both of them),
you are rejected because you are over-obligated.  You can't pay the deposit
and for an apartment so you have to live in a "No-tell Motel".  You even have
to share the bathroom with people who have some unpleasant health habits. 

Now, you want to start your life over again, but you don't have your 
looks (your husband knocked your teeth out and left permanant scars).  And
you get to the point where you dread seeing the kids because it hurts so 
much when the hour is over (your ex always show up late with the kids).

You get laid off.  Miss a couple of payments.  Then you have bills coming 
in from everywhere.  You can't declare bankruptcy, you don't have 
anything.  Then you get a whole new set of bills.  Your ex declared 
bankruptcy, leaving all of the joint oblications in YOUR lap.

Finally, you give up.  You move to a different state, and send money when 
you can.  Usually money orders or cashiers checks.  Suddenly, this bounty 
hunter is beating your head to a pulp with a pool queue and dragging you 
to the county jail.  Now you're in prison with a hundred dykes who want
to "make a woman out of you".

Now, you finally go to the judge, who fines you for contempt of court.  
Sitting next to your husband, snuggling up all friendly is this 
bleach-bottle blonde, in the dress you always wanted, and wearing diamond 
earings and 3 diamond rings.  You even see her slap one of your kids.
You find out that this "sweet thing", is living in your house, sleeping 
in your bed, next to your man.  Worse, she is beating up YOUR CHILDREN.

The pro-choice and pro-life movement would have fits if unmarried women 
were FORCED to give up their children at birth.

Show me any politician who publicly advocates forcing women who can't 
support themselves and their children to put their children with the 
father, or in a foster home.

In your situation, you have been abused by a man who should be prosecuted 
for violent crimes, should be given a trial by jury, and if found guilty, 
should make restitution to you and your children for the next 20 years.  
In fact, that makes MUCH more sense than putting him in JAIL for 20 years.

For every 2 Mitzys, there's a Rex.

My wife married me under false pretenses, blackmailed me for 8 years, raped
me to conceive the first child, refused sex for 8 years (twice a year, just
so you know what your missing), used a thermomometer to determine the HOUR
she would be most fertile, demanded sex "NOW or NEVER" to get pregnant,
extorted money (leaving me with an allowance of $20/week), and publicly 
humiliated me at every social gathering we attended together, including 
our church, with my family, and at company parties.

When we finally went for marriage councelling, checked herself into a
psychiatric ward as an eminant danger to the kids, met a man in the Lock-up
unit, and had a love affair with him.  When he proposed, she maxed the credit
cards buying him presents, demanded full custody of the kids, and agreed to
"settle" for $400/month. 

The state law mandated a minimum of $600/month + $400/month for day-care, 
health insurance, life insurance, and summer programs.  Since my ex was 
working 5 hours/week at a 7-11, her "share" was only about $10/month.
She finally had to ask the judge to give her a "Minute order" so that she 
could get married.  I was seated at the far back right corner of the 
church at her wedding.  He had the kids rechristened at the wedding.

Leslie "dislocated her shoulder", and Jerry "emotionally disturbed" were 
each collecting Workman's Comp/Disability.  I tried to help out by 
letting them use my "Day-Care" payment to put Jerry through college.  Two 
weeks after he started his first post-graduation job, he had his third 
stroke, his Multiple Sclerosis got worse, and he decided to return to 
school.  Leslie also decided to return to school (at my expense).

Finally, when I was able to take a job where I could visit the kids 
regularly, she told me that my visits were disruptive, that when the kids 
spent time with me, they would be disrespectful to Jerry (her husband).
I finally left the state - Leslie had told the kids I wasn't seeing them 
because I didn't care.

Two weeks after leaving, Leslie sent me a letter telling me she was going 
to have to put Nicky in a Foster home.  I called a lawyer to arrange for 
me to take custody, to which Leslie demanded an apology.  I finally 
resolved Nicky's crisis by telling him to "Hug your daddy (jerry) for 15 
minutes every day and tell him everything you would tell me".

Jerry has still made no attempt to accept legal responsibility for the 
children, other than to have Leslie make a will stipulating him as the 
guardian in the event of her death.

Recently, I was two weeks late with a Child Support payment.  She told me 
she was going to see a lawyer to have my paycheck garnished.  I went to 
see the kids at her house (3 bedrooms, full basement, 2000 sq ft, yard, 
and upper middle class neighborhood).  I still haven't been able to get a 
deposit together to move out of my "Guest House" in the "Jersey City 
Slums".  It isn't save to go to my house between 10PM and Midnight 
because the gangs are rolling people for Coke money.

Every month, I have to count the nickles to make sure that I will have 
enough to get to work.  I make $75,000/year.


> Regarding license restrictions and the like, I must insist 
> that judges are usually willing to work with a man who is 
> making an effort.
> >Pointing at feminists and calling them the cause of 
> all the misery is >not only not going to solve the problem, 
> it will also divert attention >from the real goals 

> 	Thank for you saying this.  Thank you for 
> acknowledging that not all feminists are evil. 	You know 
> Rex, we both want the same thing, you and I: what is best 
> for the children.  You have made some very valid points. We 
> all simply operating from different paradigms.  For 
> instance, the paradigm I am operating from is the one in 
> which the men in my life have abused the sanctity of 
> marriage and other fatherhood, and from your perspective, it 
> is the women in your life who have done this.

Actually, I am a male feminist.  I even understand the motives behind these
women's actions.  I can even have some compassion for them.  My biggest
quarrel isn't with Leslie, it's with Jerry, and the man who promised $2
Million and to legally adopt the children if a friend of mine would move in
with him and marry him - then raped her, and turned her out. 

> In both 
> cases, it is to the detriment of the children.  I agree with 
> you that the system is imperfect.  However, in order to 
> begin a dialogue one must be willing to admit that women 
> suffer from the same judicial system that men suffer from.  
> Men do not exclusively suffer, but they do suffer.  I am 
> willing to admit that.  Are you?
> 
> >1  creating families and marriages that work.
> >2  creating a supportive environment for children.
> >3  requiring due process for loss of liberty or property.
> >4  providing a secure environment for wives and children.
> 
> Okay, I'm with you, I'm with you...
>
> >5  protecting fathers from fraudulent marriages.
...and mothers...

Let's rephrase that to:
> >5  preventing fraudulent marriages.

> >6  providing workable step-father/natural-father structures.
> >7  encouraging remarriage (or long term partnerships for homosexuals)
> >8  relying only on due process to exclude abusive/selfish 
>     men and women from full partnership and participation in the 
>     family.

> Okay, I'm there...

> >9  providing incentives for vasectomy, condom use, and 
>     active participation in birth control.

> 	Very good point.  After all, these "conniving" women 
> didn't conceive these children all by themselves.  More 
> attention needs to be paid to the seriousness of parenthood. 
> When I hear about another teenage girl having a baby, I want 
> to grab her and shake her and shout, "Do you know how 
> difficult your life will be now?  Do you know how hard it 
> will be to reach your full potential and your goals?"

> >10 providing incentives for "conjugal agreements" such as 
> "live in" dates with "consentual sex" which protect men from 
> rape/abuse charges, 
> 
> and protect women from rape and abuse, right?  I 
> assume that you meant to say that.

Yes.  I was writing this into the audience of men.  My personal 
preference would be to have proof of consent before and after
the act.  This protects women from signing a consent form, having a nice 
experience get violently ugly, and then the rapist claiming it's O.K. 
because he has the consent form.  Having consent immediately after
actually places a responsibility on the man that he wouldn't be used to.  
That is, he must actually be responsible for actually satisfying his 
partner.  The guy who does "slam/bam thank you mam, I got mine what's 
your problem", would have to do something to make sure that she was 
satisfied if he wanted the post-facto consent signed.

The men would oppose this, because it opens up the possibility that a 
women whose primary motives going into the relationship were blackmail 
could sign the first line, have sex, and then refuse to sign the second 
line until he signs over title to his car.

> >and provide women with a record of all sexual partners 
> 	how positively Orwellian of you...

If a woman is impregnated after having unprotected sex with 7 men in one 
week, which one should be the father?  I maintain that every man who 
chose not to use birth control is equally responsible for that child.
It might be shocking to discover how few people could trace their 
cultural backgrounds.

> >stay 	married at least until the children are ready to 
> marry-or until they die.  (God's original design).  
> 	But not everybody believes in your God.  

With the exception of Amazon-like cultures, where men are milked like 
cows for their sperm and then kill in ritual sacrifice, the majority of 
human culture is structured around one of two models.  In each model, the
male provides protection and provisions for the woman.  The woman provides
sex, support, and children to him.

In most cultures, the "family" is actually the extended family or tribe.  
But each man must feel that his sexual and bonding needs are met or he
will retailiate.  In many cultures, a woman who refuses her man can be 
forced to leave the community.  Until about 200 years ago, a woman who 
refused her man in Europe would be tortured and burned as a witch (over 
15 million women died this way).  In Asia, the woman would be sent out 
into the desert.  In the far north, she would be sent into the snow.

Sexuality, bonding, and nurturing is the motivation which drove men into 
battles that often led to certain death.  The survivors would return and 
the competition was so intense that even with poligamy, there were women 
who would be left to the mercies of the most abusive men.

If you think about it, it's a miracle that we have survived as a species.

In primate cultures, the woman has sex with as many males as possible.  
If any male feels excluded - especially a dominant male, he will kill the 
children.  In areas of poverty, prostitutes and "sluts" often keep their 
children protected in this way.

> 	The ideal for children is not to be living with two 
> parents who are married forever, but to be surrounded by 
> nurturing people who love them.

The ideal for human beings is to be surrounded by nurturing people who 
love them.  Mothers need the support of others in the community.  Fathers 
need the support of Mothers, and others within the community.  If you 
were force to raise your children - entirely on your own - isolated from 
all others - you would be like the "nuclear family mothers" of the late 
1950's who often ended up on tranquilizers and electro-shock due to
sleep deprivation, anxiety, and lack of emotional support.  Corporations 
would transplant the families several times, preventing the mothers from 
establishing a support network.

As pointed out above, divorce is a relatively new notion.  Each 
nurturing adult needs to be there by choice.  Our "civilized" culture 
forces men to privide "money only", to children taken away from them by a 
mother who refuses to support or nurture him.

> Toward this end I think one 
> important facet that you left out of your perfect world is 
> that there should be mandatory counseling after divorce.  

One of the advantages of Mediation and Arbitration is that it implies 
counseling before, during, and after the divorce.  It forces both parties 
to come to terms with the consequences of "being right" and making the 
other person wrong.  It forces both parents to stop being the "innocent 
victims" and start taking responsibility for their actions and inactions.

> One would think that once you no longer had to live with the 
> offending party, the acrimony could be done away with; 
> however, men and women everywhere continue to use the 
> products of their union as pawns.  Tragic and criminal.

Women bond to their children while they are in the womb.  Men bond with 
the children after they are born.  When that bond is expoited, abused, 
and becomes a source of constant pain, the only action to be taken is to 
sever the bond.  The alternative is insanity.  Men who refuse to let go 
of the relationship or the children are consistantly much more dangerous 
than the ones who are encouraged to let go.

Unfortunately, sanity and survival require that the NCP sever the bond, 
while the law mandates that the person who has already lost those people 
he loved most (your husband loved you once?, he loved your kids enough to 
stay after he knew you were pregnant.  How long did he stay after they 
were born?) must suffer the constant reminder of that loss in the form of 
payments, relative poverty (compared to his previous lifestyle).

If your husband raped you, forced you to marry him, forced you to have his
baby, then immediately started beating you up for the fun of it, and skipped
town the second he knew you were pregnant, then he probably deserves to
suffer.  Most men take on the responsibility of children out of love for the
mother. 

> Divorce can be successful.  My husband, his ex-wife and I 
> have agreed that the needs of the children, both theirs and 
> mine, are foremost.  

Your husband has the support of a woman who loves him.  Your husband has 
the support of your children and family.  Your husband has an intense 
commitment to make both marriages work.

> Be that as it may, and as she makes 
> twice as much as we do combined, she asks only for help for 
> college expenses and occasional needs.

Suppose she were to suddenly demand 1/2 your after tax income (which is 
what she would be entitled to under UDM), plus payment toward back 
child-support due.  You have to admit, this is an unusual situation (the 
woman makes twice as much as her husband AND you).

> We take her children 
> when it is desired, whenever the children wish to see 
> us--they have no restrictions on their access to their 
> father.  We make every possible effort to get along for 
> their sake.  I invited her over last Thanksgiving, and she 
> gives presents to my children at Christmas and on their 
> birthdays.

Again, you are the exception.  What if your ex's wife kept showing up 
with the kids an hour late, took them out of state, moved without leaving 
you a forwareding address, or just told him that his visits were making 
the kids unruly.  Now your husband would be at the mercy of the court 
system.  The reality is that your ex's wife is being incredibly 
generous.  Your entire relationship with her children is completely at 
her mercy.

> Although I do not agree with her reasons for 
> divorcing him,

What is important is that she divorce him and he is married to you.  What 
is important is that she is not using your marriage as justification for 
being difficult.

> I have made an effort to be her friend and 
> confident, because a united front presented to these 
> children, lets them know that they can't play any of us off 
> against the other.

> I believe that adds to their feelings of 
> consistency and security, which psychological studies show 
> is necessary to the development of healthy self-esteem.
> It involved swallowing our pride, and both of them 
> forgetting about past wrongs, and it involved being adults. 

Therein lies the key to not just successful divorces, but also successful 
marriages.  When you can give up your right to be right, miracles can 
happen.  I have a working relationship with my ex because I constantly 
give up the right to be right.  I would have a case for taking custody, 
having her husband jailed for fraud, and having her permanently 
institutionalized.  I give up my right to be right.

>  The children are well-adjusted, respectful, do well in 
> school, and they have the models of mature, well-behaved 
> adults to emulate.

Mine are the same way.  We both practice the same principles.  This is 
the possibility of looking for that common ground.

> Then there is my ex-husband.  (Sigh).  He does call about 
> every six months, after midnight, and screams curses at me 
> before hanging up.  
When he calls:
	Is he sober?
	Is he with someone he loves?
	Is he happy in the rest of his life?
	Are you supportive during the call?
	To you give up your right to be right?

If he is calling after midnight.  My guess is that he is in one of those 
moments of extreme lonliness, after working a long hard day,
just before pay-day, out of money.  He's had a bad round of luck with 
women, and in fit of self-pity, possibly aided with a little liquid 
pain-killer, he calls you to remind himself of the biggest failure of his 
life.  For him, you are proof that love is a lie, just like santa clause 
and the tooth fairy.  The day he doesn't hang up angry, is the day he 
will do something terribly self-destructive.

Your successful second marriage doesn't help by the way.  It's just one 
more reminder of what a failure he was.

> He wants nothing to do with the children 
> that we planned mutually.  I have begged him to visit them, 
> and my former in-laws have full access to them, but he 
> refuses. Even knowing that his daughter misses him terribly 
> and is hurt by his departure, he stays away.

He can barely tolerate the pain of talking to you for an hour on the 
telephone.  Spending several hours with your daughter would be an endless 
reminder of his failure.  The girl won't have his values, his hopes, his 
dreams for her.  He can't buy the dress he wants to give her, because he 
can't afford it.

> He says that since I divorced him I am ON MY OWN.

But you're not on your own, are you.  You have a loving husband who cares 
for you, loves your daughter, and wants to share his life with you.  I 
would reccomend that your husband adopt your daughter.  If something 
happened to you, your ex would take custody - to get revenge at your 
daughter.  Your daughter would remind him of his failure with you.  He 
could hurt himself or your daughter.  He would hurt your husband anyway 
he could.

> As I said before, he 
> has never paid any child support he was ordered to pay.

You went to a lawyer who filed some papers and a man in a black robe told 
your husband that he could no longer live with the woman he loved.  He 
told your husband that he had to pay 20% of his income - 50% of his 
after-tax/insurance... income and live on the remaining 25-30% of the 
income he worked hard and trained hard to get so that he could make you 
happy.  If he works that job (or that career), he gets that little 
reminder of you.  He probably spends the money he should be sending you 
on self-destructive behaviors (drugs, prostitution, booze...) as a way of 
getting even with you.  Like cutting his own throat to hurt you.

I don't know your husband.  I know the feelings I have as a non-custodial 
parent.  My son is a skin-head, my daughter is a tom-boy.  In a few more 
years, my son will be hurting people I've spent my life trying to help.  
My daughter will have another man's values.  I was so determinined never 
to let myself be hurt like that again that I had a vasectomy.  When I 
told the surgeon he would pay child support for any children conceived 
after this (during the operation), he burned, stitched, and stapled the 
tubes to make sure I never got another woman pregnant again.  Even today, 
when I get aroused, I can feel the pain of that staple in my groin.  I 
originally asked to be castrated.

I have heard similar sentiments.  From dozens of other men, over the last 
20 years.  Some of them were alcholics and deserved to lose their 
families.  For them, sobriety is a reminder of the failure to get sober 
when it would have made the biggest difference.

> So you have before you the best and worse of examples.  
> I would like to think that most are, at the very least, in 
> the better group.  Unfortunately, statistics prove 
> otherwise.

Unfortunately the best candidates for divorce are the men who can 
out-drink, out-fight, and out-sex the other men.  We have made "Rambo" a 
sex symbol.  Even the sophisticated "James Bond" who can kill 100 men, 
seduce 10 women, and escape near-death, without ever showing a human 
emotion - takes a back seat to "Rambo".

Maybe, with "cute boys" like Michael J Fox, Mathew Broderick, and ... oh 
well, I can't think of any other "Gentle Sex Gods".  But maybe this will 
encourage women to seek out gentler, kinder men.  Unfortunately, women 
will always look for the "Fantasy man" and men will always look for the 
"Fantasy Woman".  When, after marriage, they discover that their mate is 
a flesh-and-bones stinky-armpits human, they have to either fall in love 
with the reality, or make themselves and their partner wrong.

Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, those defects of character get 
bigger, the partner is wrong, the promises to love and honor are broken, 
and we make our partners wrong to justify breaking the promise.  The fear 
of spending the rest of our lives with this abusive slob... becomes 
unbearable.  Eventually, one or both partners takes the first step toward 
the final act.  They ask for the divorce...from then on, it's a slow 
painful ritual of attrition - making each other wrong, until the other 
partner finally, reluctantly assents to an event comparable to having his 
arm (or penus) chopped off.  Sometimes, this means an affair, sometimes 
violence, sometimes just working until the wee hours of the morning.  For 
the woman it means - no sex, cold dinners, insulting him in front of his 
friends, flirting with his boss, or his rivals.  Leaving the blankets on 
the couch as he watches the television.

> People are by nature selfish and imperfect.  No, 
> I don't have any easy answers.  I just work from here and 
> try to make lives easier for women.  You try to work to make 
> lives easier for fathers.



> I can only hope that our goals are not at odds, and that the children will be safe.
> The  ultimate goal, after all, is not parents' rights.  It is the best interests of the children.

Whose children?  Your children?  Your husband's children?  What about the 
children of the woman your husband could marry if he completed his 
relationship with you?  What about the children of the woman whose 
boyfriend earns a 6 figure income, but demands $1000/month of her 
ex-husband's $3000/month paycheck.  What about the children of the woman 
whose father might be any of 6 men, each with substantial income?

What about the woman whose hatred of men has driven her to move her 
children onto poverty rather than depend on anything other than the AFDC 
collected from her husband by DYFSS?

What about the woman whose attraction to druggies and drunks because it's 
easy to "clean their pockets and throw them out", leaves the children at 
constant risk of violence and abuse.

What about the women whose mental health is marginal, who beats her 
children regularly, whose boyfriend beats the kids regularly, but will 
demand custody because she needs the child support to survive because she 
dropped out of school when she was 16?

Too often, women who no longer have the right to "live in the manner in 
which they would like to become accustomed" use the children as hostages 
in a game of kidnapping, blackmail, and extortion.  The advocacy (court) 
system - often staffed by fundamentalist Christian extremists - assumes 
that the only reason a woman should be expected to give up her children 
is if she is convicted of a felony.  They assume that the only reason a 
woman would leave a man is because he is an drunken abusive philanderer, 
and it he should be held in contempt of court for any attempt to state 
otherwise.

As I said earlier, up until the 1800's, the woman who was no longer 
wanted by her man was obviously a witch and once she confessed (under 
torture), she could be burned at the stake - problem solved.

In the 1990's, the man who is no longer wanted by a woman is oviously an 
evil being and once he has finished paying her lawyer to prove that he is 
unfit to be a husband, he can be forced into celebate slavery for 20 
years - problem solved?

> Regards,
> 
> Misty Smith-Beringer 

	Rex Ballard





From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Dec 22 13:06:13 1995
Status: O
X-Status: