In-Reply-To: <199512221454.GAA02972@iway1.iw.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.


On Fri, 22 Dec 1995 msmithbe@iway1.iw.net wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, Rex Ballard  
> wrote:
> >The welfare roles are packed with women who bought the 
> "fairy tail >marriage" 
> 
> Very true.  I came from a good family--my father is a 
> computer programmer.  My mother is an artist who owns a 
> gallery.  My midwestern parent have been married since 1955. 
>  However, I made a critical error in judgement; I see the 
> same among many young women, the belief that
>  passion + violence = excitement,
>  and stability + commitment =boredom.  

Welcome to the first discovery, the first "Key issue" where feminists and 
"men's movement" should find common ground.  Due to censorship laws and
MPAA review policies, there has been a 30 year pattern of encouraging
children and teenagers to view violent (often felonious) behavior while
leaving sexuality to the "Porno Movie" with no plot, no romance, no love, 
no values, no responsibilities, and no consequences.  It is as if an 
entire culture had developed multiple personality disorder in the domain 
of love, sex, marriage, and intimacy.  In our ferver to say that sex does 
not implicitly mean love, we have created a culture where love can 
exclude sex, violence is a corequisite of sex.

Instead of allowing NC-17 to turn into  some "Punk's wasteland", it 
should be turned into the rating where young people can learn what 
functional intimate relationships are about.

>Unfortunately, as we as a society have second and 
> third generations of children who have no traditional 
> nuclear family as a role model, they don't have any idea of 
> what is right.  
Try this on.  Over 75% of the children will grow up in a single parent 
family.  Over half will be incested or molested by their 15th birthday.  
Usually by step-fathers or their non-marital equivalent.

> I live in a town of 150 people.  My children are surrounded 
> by people who are third generation farmers and the 
> grandchildren of pioneers.  They have the same people around 
> them, day after day, reminding them they an eye is kept on 
> them.  They have paper routes.  I bought an old house for 
> $2,500 and now it's all they can remember.  Same house, same 
> babysitters, same people who make them toe the line.  That's 
> what kids need.  Their babysitters are farmers, and many's 
> the time they had to help out during lambing.  Last summer 
> my oldest son was responsible for chasing down animals that 
> escaped (pigs and sheep).
Conngratulations, you have created for yourself, the equivalent of an 
extended family or "tribe".  Until 1950, when veterans of WWII were 
"recalled" for service in Korea, most families were tribal,  with as many 
as four generations living in the same area.  Often within a 1 mile 
radius.  Companies found that by relocating the father regularly, they 
could make him more dependent on the corporate culture.  In effect, the 
company became his "family".  IBM, Hewlett Packard, and Digital Equipment 
even up "colonies" by relocating major sites to locations 30 miles from 
the nearest major town (Niwot Colorado...).  Of course, the wives and 
children were grossly neglected and often became an insurance  claim 
burdon (over 40% of the relocated wives suffered from acute depression).

Now of course, employees are disposable.  Companies drop employees like 
you change shoes.  Today, the average duration of employment has gone 
from 20 years, to 18 months.

> >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 
> 
> I would want him to support his children no matter what.  I 
> wouldn't ask for alimony, though; I think alimony should 
> only be used for special occasions and only for a limited 
> time.  Grownups don't need protecting, kids do.  I think 

There are a series of implicit assumptions here.  First, the assumption 
is that only the mother should get the children (Because she isn't 
making as much money).  Suppose you knew that you could lose your 
children if you didn't have an income sufficient to support yourself AND 
your children.

There is the assumption that the father should pay for mother's rent, 
food, clothing,... because she will be devoting her time exclusively to 
caring for the children.

There is an assuption that the father cannot or will not get custody 
without a custody battle in which he must pay her lawyer and his, along 
with social workers and experts, all of whom will make it seem like he 
can win - even though the courts only rule against the mother in the 
cases of criminal  behavior (felony drug abuse, felony dwi, felony child 
abuse...).  A custody battle runs anywhere from $60,000 to $1 million, 
depending on how much the lawyers and "experts" think they can milk.
In all divorces, including those where the mother voluntarily gives the 
father custody, the total number of male NCPs  is less than 5%.

Then there is the assumption that the woman would now become a 
"cloistered Madonna" forsaking all other men until the children have 
reached their 22nd birthday.  90% of all divorced women will engage
in some form of coupling  with another partner within 3 years of the 
divorce.  Divorced women receiving large child support settlements are 
often  targets of men who will never contribute their "fair share".  
Often they are collecting disability.

Ironically, the Middle Class Father, who has studied in college, often 
graduated before getting married, worked many hours of overtime, often 
worked two jobs  to enable mother to stay at home with the kids... Is
expected to continue these payments, without the benefit of someone who 
can take his suits to the cleaners, make appointments, and of course give 
him affirmations and incentivess for working (love, sex, intimacy...).  
In effect he becomes a slave.  He must work, without reward, and forfeit 
75% of his income to support single women and disabled men.

Because he has no substantial deductions, the middle class man has the 
highest tax rate, the lowest benefit rate, and the lowest social status.
He barely keeps enough to pay for a studio apartment.  He is excluded 
from even the possibility of remarriage.  One of the few role models of 
responsibility -- will not be able to pass that on to anyone!

> $300 for two kids is reasonable; really high awards for 
That depends on a number of factors.  If your husband earns $500/month 
and you're expecting $300 - that doesn't even give him enough to eat.

> child support amaze me.  Kids just don't cost that much 
Small awards are given to "bums", people who will probably never make 
enough to pay for the effort of collecting.  The extremely rich can buy 
an annuity that pays the child support automatically.  Often a home 
equity loan will handle the minimums.  Remember, this is less than 1% of 
the entire population.  Most of them get custody of their children.

> money to raise.  I clothe my kids in used clothing.  I buy 
> them each one good outfit for a season for special 
> occasions.  They have used bicycles. 

I grew up in a two parent family and wore used clothes and used 
bicycles.  My father worked hard, but we had medical expenses, he needed 
a car to drive to work, he needed suits for work, and we got no 
assistance from any government agency.

> >jail.  Remember, the key distinction between your issues 
> and those raised>in the FATHERS list, is that there are no 
> 
> You have to agree that it's dangerous to punish a straying 
> spouse by witholding child support. If that were the case, 
> it would be simple matter to have other men testify that 
> they had had her too.

The questions is,  how come the most vulnerable parent seems to be 
entitled to the children, child support for 20 years, and isn't expected 
to ever take on the responsibility for her own, and her children's lives.
I've put my Ex and her Husband  through college -- they still expect the 
full amount (nearly 50% of my after-tax  pay).

> >The sticky part is that when a woman goes on AFDC (in 
> Colorado), she is 
> 
> I see after reading this and talking to a few people that it 
> is apparent to me that AFDC laws are administered 
> differently in each state.  I was not aware of this before.

Each state has variations on the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage, and 
different expectations.  At one time, men contemplating divorce would try 
to move to Texas - because the state only mandated 10% of gross income or 
$400/month - whichever was less.  In California the amount is scaled to 
60% of after tax income or $500/month - whichever is greater.

> South Dakota has very strict laws to protect the children.  
> They are liberal about giving custody to fathers if it 
> proven to be in the children's best interest.  I know three 
> women close to me that are NCP.  

I know several women who are NCP, in Colorado, Wyoming, New York, and New
Jersey.  They were alcholics, had multiple DWIs, had tried to commit suicide
several times, and were under investigation for drug-dealing at the time of
the divorce.  Two were offered "dropped charges" if they would relinquish
custody of their children.  One had her child kidnapped by social 
services and placed in a foster home - eventually the father admitted 
that he was the informant and did it in hopes of getting custody.  It was 
only after he was denied permission to petition for custody that he 
recanted.


> Even if a woman was denied AFDC, there are a host of other 
> programs for children here.  Many are sponsored by local 
> masonic lodges.  Many are sponsored by local churches.  Then 
> there is WIC, Head Start, and other similar Federal programs 
> that operate closely with charities to help in identifying 
> children at risk.

Interesting isn't it.  The majority of the funding is provided by (which 
group was that who had the highest net tax rate again?).  At one point, 
my Ex was collecting $700/month workman's comp, $600/month from Jerry's 
disability income, $1000 in child support from me, $400/month in housing 
subsidies, $400 in head-start assistance for the kids, and $200 in 
food-stamps, WIC, and food-banks. - Total package - $3300/month - after 
tax income.  Nearly double our after-tax income during the time we were 
married.

> We have the advantage, being a rural 
> state with only about 1 million people; it's more difficult 
> to administer aid and protect the rights of children in more 
> populous areas.

Congratulations!  You solved your problem by avoiding the 250 million 
other people, including 40 million middle-class estranged fathers who can 
subsidize your state.

> >want to marry a man who only had 25% of his income?).  As a 
> 
> Actually, the man I married makes about $11,000 per year.
Fine, what if, after taxes and child-support he were only left
with $3000/year?

> I have avoid romances with men who make a lot of money, and 
Is that really your choice alone to make?  You don't take into account 
your children, your ex-husband, or your benefactors.  If you were a 
single woman, responsible only for yourself, you could justify choosing 
to "shack up" with a "pan-handler" if that was your choice.  You 
declare, in writing that you expect other men to subsidize your choice of 
a bohemian mate.

> I'll tell you why.  I am an ambitious woman and in order to 
> have some serenity in life it's necessary to not be married 
> to someone who is equally ambitious.  He works hard when he 
> works, and he's paying a little over half of our bills while 
> I'm finishing up college, but I don't believe he'll ever 
> make any more than he is now.

You married a bumpkin, he pays half your bills, and you are prepared to 
but 36 million men in jail by demanding in a public policy-setting forum, 
that you feel that men should be obligated to subsidize your choices 
unilaterally and unconditionally.


> Plus, and this sounds a 
> little greedy; I need him to be here.  I'd much rather spend 
> my time off scouring thrift shops with my husband than 
> sitting and waiting for him to come home from work.  It 

Hey, I'd rather spend some time shopping and doing anything with someone 
I loved.  I get the "priviledge" of working 60-80 hours a week to secure 
the income required to pay the child support and day-care that my Ex uses 
to put her husband through college and take the kids to Disneyland.  They 
need clothes, transportation, to build up some equity in their home... but
I have no right to have a say in the matter.  In fact, she want's to 
create a will that names Jerry as the legal guardian of the children in 
the event of her death.  But if my check is 3 days late, she is on the 
phone threatening to call her lawyer.

> doesn't matter to me, because all I've ever wanted from any 
> man is respect, love, and honesty.  In answer to your 
> previous questions, my husband's ex she is a registered 
> degreed nurse.  She works in critical care.  She joined the 
> army when they had been married for about ten years, and he 
> quit his job to go with her and take care of the kids.  He 
> is much better a nurturer and mate than a provider, and 
> that's okay because I'm a good provider and not very good at 
> day-to-day household tasks.

This is priceless.  Two people who decided they didn't want to deal with 
the issues of being responsible for their their children by taking on 
their own responsibilities, chose to marry each other so that neither of 
them would have to earn their own income, and expect the support system 
to subsidize their choices.  Your Ex's lawyer should get a copy of this 
when they finally catch up with him.  More likely, he will spend 20 years 
in a "work-release" program, getting raped by convicts at night, draining 
ditches in the summer heat by day, so that you can shack-up in the Dakota
mountains with your full-time lover.  Great Scam!  Wish I could get away 
with that (once in a while).  A few million of us "Dead Beat Dads" have
some responsibilities to take care of.

> >to make 3 times what my wife's husband makes to live in a 
> room that is >smaller than her kitchen.  
> Woah, you're living in the wrong place.  A half-acre lot 
> just sold adjacent to my property for less than $5000.  
> Remember, I'm living in a house I paid $2,500 for.  The 
> house across the street from me sold for $12,000, but mine 
> was in really bad shape when I bought it. Not to detract 
> from your situation, you understand.  It's tragic that you 
> can't make it on your salary. Out here, you could live like 
> a king on less than a third of that.  Still, I feel your 
> pain.  Why don't you leave the city?

My child support obligation is $1200/month.  My ex demands that I work a 
saleried job instead of as a consultant (she doesn't like it if I'm on 
the bench for a week).  In New York City, I can net $3500/month take-home
which is after deductions for mandatory health insurance for the kids 
(worth about $450/month).  I have a car payment - $500/month, because I 
had to have it to drive to work (the nearest residence was 5 miles away) 
and now I can't sell it for as much as I owe.  And of course, there's the
storage fees ($100/month), professional expenses ($200/month), and the
car insurance ($100/month).  Leaving me  with about $1500.  Then there 
is subway, path, and lunch  ($30/day).  A studio in NYC runs $800/month.
Of course, I need to  pay 3 months rent, and commissions  (1.5 month's 
rent) in advance.  So I stay where it's a short walk-through 5 street 
gangs-to the path station, spend 1 hour in transit each way, work
10-20 hours/day, and try to keep training myself - 10 hours/week.

It's not enough.  She wants more money, my boss wants more productivity 
(it's hard to compete with a man who has a wife taking care of the little 
details during working hours).  I scheduled a visit with my kids, riding 
on the tails of a course in Denver.  I originally scheduled 3 days.  My 
boss demanded that I return after one day.  My ex couldn't have the kids 
ready before 10 AM (she didn't want me to disturb her husband), and I had 
to leave for the airport at 3 PM.  In the last 5 years I've seen my kids 
for 9 hours - 3 in 1993, 6 in 1995.  It took 3 hours just to get them to 
smile.  When I left, we each had to deal with the "Death" of someone we 
loved very much.

> >When you encourage "dead-beats" (snip)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.
> >Show me any politician who publicly advocates forcing women 
> who can't >support themselves and their children to put 
> their children with the (snip)
> >Kids learn the message "Why should I work?

> It's much more common in urban lower economic areas.  
> Remember when I extolled the virtues of our rural life?  
> These people are simple and they may not know pate from 
> meatloaf, but they are the hardest-working, most stoic 
> people I know.  Last year I paid a boy $20 to 'till my 
> garden, and I wasn't satisfied with the job he did.  Within 
> minute he was back, and THIS time his father was standing 
> behind him, saying things like, "You got my name you better 
> work hard, boy!"  The boys rarely go to college, and often 
> leave school is there is an opening in the local factory 
> that might not come around again.

There are about 4 million people living and working on farms, and the 
demand for them is diminishing rapidly.  About the only need for human 
labor on farms is during harvest season when migrant labor is worked for 
20 hours/day at 1/2 minimum wage (paid by the quantity picked), given 
sewage to drink, and given bean dishes to eat.  Even the sheperds of the 
Dakotas have to compete with industrial agrabusiness.

When the economy was 90% rural, farmers depended on "their good name" for 
credit for seed, supplies...)  A man without honor quickly found himself 
working as a hand, slopping the pigs.

> Yet, there is a growing trend among the girls here to have 
> children while in high school.

Point of fact.  Until about 20 years ago, a 16 year old woman in rural 
america was considered an "old maid", often considered too homely or
unpleasant to be married.  The women would marry while they were still 
in school, help out on the husband's farm, and when she had children, her 
sisters and in-laws would help take care of the children.

> These are girls from good 
> families, girls who graduate valedictorian with their 
> newborns in the audience.  Last year the co-valedictorians 
> were both girls, one with a child in the audience and one 
> carrying twins.  Neither plans to get married, and these 
> were both bright girls, obviously, because South Dakota 
> schools are tough!  As a future educator, it breaks my 
> heart. 

 Now, the wisdom of social engineering has encouraged these women to stay
ignorant, get pregnant, avoid marriage, and hope that their high school
diploma will get them a job when they have to go off welfare. 

Of course, the rural boys aren't much better off.  They drop out of 
high school for factory jobs.  If the factory closes, they're stuck.
They also discover - as workin' men, that the wages of factory aren't 
enough to feed them, a wife, and children.

I've been dealing with young alcoholics for 20 years, helping them get 
off drugs.  If seeing a farm-girl graduate pregnant breaks your heart, 
wait until you've watched 1000 walk into a detox, desparate to get sober 
because their boyfriend beat them up, reject every responsible man in 
favor of the stud who "love's 'em and leave's 'em".  When they realize 
they might be pregnant, they have sex with some big-hearted shmuck who 
thinks the kid is his (doesn't even check it out).  Within 6 months after 
the baby is born, the woman gives Mr BigHeart the cold shoulder and files
for divorce, and restraining orders.  She then let's "Mr Macho and 
Studly" move in, to make up for what child support doesn't cover.  Mr 
Studly gets her back on drugs, makes her hustle for drugs, and watches 
the kids while she's "makin a little off the books".  Every time she 
comes up short, he beats her up.

Eventually, she turns up again, back in the detox, 80 pounds overweight, 
constantly complaining about how her ex hasn't paid the child support, 
her old-man beat her up, and she's the innocent victim of evil men.  She 
will only take help from a man wearing a Black Leather Jacket.

> Generally speaking, the woman who can't support herself 
> marries the man who won't care for the children.  After all, 
> if you think about it, well-bred men are more likely to be 
> attracted to a woman who is more capable, right?  I realize 
> there are exceptions, but overall this is the rule.  

I know hundreds of "well-bred men" who are desparately wanting a woman 
who has the famiily he lost.  Unfortunately the mothers aren't 
interrested in sane, responsible men "BOOORRINGGGG".  They want a man who 
has an income (like disability) but also has LOTS of spare time.
The fact that he pops another can of beer every 30 minutes is just a 
minor irriitating habit... Until he beats her, or molests the kids.
They actually go to "Biker Bars" to seek them out.

> Poverty has its own culture.  I never realized that until I 
> moved here.  (I grew up in relative afluence) People are 
> fully capable of helping themselves to a better life, but 
> they lack the cultural literacy, education, and belief in 
> themselves to mainstream into society.  It's one thing to 

Unfortunately, this culture is growing.  To often, the mother ends up 
working and the "bum" takes care of the kids, giving them HIS values, his 
beliefs, and his view of "powerless victim in an evil world".

> place a college education in front of a woman and help her 
> fill it out.  It's another to teach her how to act, speak, 
> and dress properly.  
Even this is often the product of the "Leather Jacket" values.  "Suits" 
are contemptable.  "Ties" are for loosers.  Black leather over black 
T-Shirt...That's cool.  Let's not forget that Don Johnson "haven't shaved 
for 3 days" look.

> The same goes for men.  For me, it was 
> easy because I had lived the life.  I came from a good 
> family, and in Dallas I had a good job as a life underwriter 
> assistant.  It wasn't too hard for me to apply for college, 
> and scrounge all the thrift shops for the clothes that I 
> knew were acceptable.

There's more to success than paperwork and clothes.  Success comes from 
being able to say what you are going to do, and doing it!  Even when you
fail, if you change the direction, cause a new movement, get people 
thinking, success is present.

> Even on AFDC I was cultivating the 
> friendships of lawyers, doctors, executives and politicians, 
> because I talked the talk.  
More important, you respected them.  You honored them, their values, and 
their commitment to serve and make a difference.  No one succeeds in any 
of those professions by "Looking out for number 1".

> Now this country is raising a group of children who don't 
> know how to behave in a sit down restaurant, how to shake 
> hands, or what to wear to court.  They have a culture of 
> poverty, with its beliefs and customs.  That is what you are 
> speaking of.  

Again, there is more than just the clothes.  Many of the children of 
single parent families - especially 2nd and 3rd generation - have 
contempt for anyone who serves others, who is successful, who isn't 
"looking out for #1".  This includes the spawners (I won't dignify them 
by calling them fathers), and the mothers.

> My kids and I do paper routes.  They have to work, sometimes 
> under conditions that are uncomfortable (South Dakota 
> winters are harsh) but they earn a few dollars honestly.  I 
> don't pay my children for chores.  Nobody pays me for 
> housework :-)

Here in New York and New Jersey, maids get $12/hour, nannies get 
$600/month plus room and board.  There is actually a shortage of 
unskilled labor in a town where there are 4 pan-handlers on each street 
corner.

> >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, 

> Husband number one, the one who tried to kill me, died nine 
> years ago.  Husband number two wasn't too physically 
> abusive, he was just a jerk.  He refused to work, and that's 
> fine, but he refused to take care of the house and kids 
> while I worked.  He just wanted to have a big party.

Husband number one was predictable.  Husband number two is my favorite 
example of why working NCPs hate the child-support system.  What was your 
criteria when selecting this one?  Where you choosing the man based on 
his solid background, car that was paid for, and clothes that implied
"working stiff"?  Or did you fall for the "Corvette that is one step 
ahead of the Repo-man", the "Bachelor Pad Party Paradise", and the
"Hip Slick and Cooool threads".

> >My wife married me under false pretenses(snip)
> >Actually, I am a male feminist.  I even understand the 
> motives behind these
> >women's actions.  
> 
> And I have recognized that many of the men who infiltrated 
> "femisa" had also been hurt by vidictive women.  But women 
> have been vindictive throughout history.  It's not the fault 
> of the women's movement.

Unfortunately, the feminist movement  (advocating special - unilateral 
concessions for women), often brings out and provides a breeding ground 
where that vindictive streak becomes national policy.  On the pressure of 
feminist groups, politicians have been pursuaded to circumvent the 
constitutionn in the name of "protecting the innocent".  A man can be put 
into econoomic slavery without ever having had the benefit of due process.

Even abortion - the woman has the sole choice in the matter, and the 
father can be held fully accountable for the choice to keep the baby, but 
cannot prevent the mother from "murdering his child".  Because the man is 
totally at the mercy of the mother, there are plenty of opportunities for 
blackmail, extortion, and circumventing of due process.

>  Many of the men on the "Father's" 
> list blame the women's movement, and feminism.  
The problem is that feminism stopped at the most critical point.  
Feminism created the possibility of women being powerful and responsible 
for their lives.  Feminism created a concience that now finds 
exploitation of women - either sexually or through domestic slavery, 
revolting.  More men are successfully prosecuted for rape.  More rapes 
are reported, more types of rape (date rape, aquaintance rape, marital 
rape...) are prosecutible.  Men are no longer allowed to expect, request, 
or demand sex in exchange for jobs, promotions, economic opportunities, 
or educational opportunities.

On the other hand, feminism never bothered to examine the issue of masculine
identity, of masculine attractiveness.  In Europe, masculinity is a function
of Honor, integrity, courage, responsibilty.  Not only will a man be
responsible for his wife's children, he will be responsible for his mistress'
children as well.  In America, we have allowed the values of violence, 
sexuality, inebriation, and intoxication to become the male role models.

In the 1960's there was James Bond.  He was violent and sexually 
irresponsible, but he had manners and had some degree of intelligence, 
sophistication, and courage.  In the 1990s we have "Rambo", "Rocky",
and Spike Lee.  Men who are rude, abusive, ignorant, violent, commit 
felony acts, and don't even ask a woman her name before having violent 
abusive sex, she of course is killed within minutes so there are no 
consequences.  One of the nice side effects of our censorship codes.

> Some of the 
> mail I got, if it had been in the form of a phone call, 
> would have been cause to have the sherrif pay a visit to 
> someone.

There are red-necks, even on the internet.  I have little respect for 
some of the "men's groups" where they have a right to "f**k 'em and 
forgit 'em".  You notice I advocate that ALL the potential paternal 
candidates line up for their fleecing by dyfss.  Most of the time, the 
responsible ones, who never cheated on their wives, used birth control 
until they had their planned children, and were willing to work it out, 
are the one's who end up getting the supoena, restraining order, and the 
garnishe' notice.

> (snip)>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.
> Good point.
One suggestion.  Have every man who has ever been treated for sexually 
transmitted diseases pay into the "baby pool".  He got that infection by 
having the same kind of sex that produces babies.  If he wants out, he 
can get a vasectomy.  If he wants disability, let him get a vasectomy.
Any man who is too disabled to do some type of  productive work, is 
obviously to disabled to be responsible for children.  (I warned you I 
was a feminist).

> >It might be shocking to discover how few people could trace 
> their >cultural backgrounds.
> 
> Yes.  As more children are born, it's becoming hard to keep 
> track of who shouldn't be reproducing with whom, because we 
> don't know who the fathers are. 

At this point, with HIV running throught the veins of 1% of the 
sexually active populationn between 15 and 30, the least of our worries 
is hemophilia.  Even though risk increases exponentialy with the number 
of parters, people switch partners almost as often as couples at a 
country dance.

> >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.  
> 
> Do you think that a lot of what happens is also related to 
> the fact that the church refused to recognize this need, and 
> condemns masturbation and infidelity while at the same time 
> placing contstraints on what kind of sex adults can indulge 
> in?  In that way one would say that the church has hurt 
> women a great deal by forcing them to have sex with a man, 
> telling her its a sin to use birth control, and telling him 
> he can't get his needs met elsewhere.  I think the church 
> has contributed to the demise of the family.

There is an important provision within all Christian Doctrines.  Paul 
says, that if you feel "you are abusing your virgin", that you should 
encourage them to get married.  Abusing your virgin is a term which 
referrs to the "song of solomon" in which a maid of 16 is prevented from 
marrying her suitor because her brothers don't want to lose their best 
sheep breeder (she is a shepherdess).  To go against the design of 
humans and prevent teenagers from coupling during puberty was considered 
more inhumane that refusing to feed them.  It was considered abuse.

A woman whose father refused to allow her to marry 1 year after her first
menses forfieted his right to choose her husband.  All of this was "cleaned
up" in the translations from hebrew - where the meaning of a simple word like
"Shalom" can fill several pages and was translated to "peace" in latin (and
later these translation errors were adopted into the english translation). 
Over 75 different words for woman were translated into the King James terms
for virgin/daughter (maiden), mother, and whore.  Women were councellors and
social workers, but these roles were translated into the word for prostitute. 

For 50,000 years, human "marriages" were chosen by their parents.  Since 
the parents usually had the same goals and values, as well as the same 
basic beliefs, the matches, enhanced by the magic of pubescent hormones, 
usually lasted through the children.

In the 1950's, men who had left for World War II at age 18 in 1944 were 
called to fight the war in Korea in 1950.  Many had been waiting several 
years to get married and didn't get married until they were in their late 
20s and even their early 30's.  Unfortunately, with no hormones, little 
parental guidence, and little public information, there was little 
support for bonding.  When the war was over, corporate relocations,
long work-days, and television  - kept couples from spending time with 
each other - for talking, for making love, or for intimacy.  Women of the 
1950s suffered from severe depression.  Doctors prescribed 
tranquilizers.  Women began drinking with each other.  Support networks 
became "gripe sessions"  where women would run down their husbands to 
purge their hate for a situation that had very little to do with him.

Television also gave us what the typical family was supposed to look 
like.  Papa was supposed to come home to perfect children and a wife  who 
was dressed for a night of romance (heels skirt, dress blouse ... 
designer fashions).

Just to make things a bit more interesting, high-school was extended to 
age 18 (it had been up to age 16 until the "new deal").  Parents couldn't 
afford to send their son's to college and support the wive and children 
so children were encouraged to delay marriage until the early 20's.  To 
thwart the sexual urges, the schools, movie theaters, and television 
stations began showing "Morality films".  Threats of VD epidemics, and 
misinformation implyinng that "Kissing could get you pregnant or give you 
VD".  As a result, young people bonded to their fantasies, rather than 
flesh and blood.

The final straw - in the atmosphere of censorship, it was not permissible 
to even speak of sex or sexuality until after the marriage.  Suddenly, 
shortly after the wedding, the husband and wife would discover that they 
had very different ideas of sexual fantasy, romantic fantasy, even  love 
fantasy.  In this background of shame, guilt, and blame, the couple would 
have to try to negotiate issues such as finances, goals, ambitions, 
child-rearing, and careers, with often the television the only 
"councellor".

> >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.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> (snip)ong did he stay after they >were born?)
> 
> He (husband number 2) stayed until after the third one was 
> born.  We planned our children.  He left because I made him 
> leave.  He threatened to take the children and leave, and he 
> threatened to hurt me if I tried to divorce him.  He refused 
> to work, as I mentioned, or care for the house and the 
> children; he was constantly in trouble with the law (bad 
> checks, vandalism, and theft) and had gotten us evicted by 
> his outrageous behavior (urinating off verandas, etc.)  He 
> wrecked our cars.  Before throwing him out I notified his 
> sister and his father, who live within blocks of me, because 
> I wanted him to have a place to stay.  I encouraged him to 
> go to vo-tech, which he could have done because financial 
> aid for school is easy to come by here.  He refused.  My 
> parents had offered to send him to lincoln technical 
> institude, and he refused.

At what point did he first show signs of irresponsibility?  This doesn't 
sound like an overnight thing.  His terms were simple "I want to party",
have my baby so you'll have something to remember me by.  He wanted you, 
and thought the kids would keep you with him (and maybe make him 
responsible).  Your lucky - most military - especially Enlisted Men, and 
their children want to play "Jewels in the Crown".  They would seduce 
English women (English men would resist advances by English women because 
they knew they and their families would be held resonsible for all 
children conceived - English women - sensing the eminent shortage of men 
wanted to "rope one in" as quickly as they could.  The American men, 
raised in the background of the Roaring 20's and the Migrants of the 
Depression 30's found that they could get women very easily by using the
"I'm going on a mission I may not survive...I'd like  to leave the world 
something to remember me by..." routine.  Eventually, the number of
pregnent English women with missing fathers became such a problem that 
they started showing "health films" to the soldier boys and "love-em and 
leave-em" movies to the English women.

When the GI's came home, they became as adept at using similar lines on 
women in the U.S. and became much more evasive.  This was the beginninggg 
of the cyccle of poverty - children bred to poverty.

Unfortunately, when you had your children, your husband took a second 
priority.  The party was over.  He may have even been jealous of the 
kids.  These are all natural feelings for a man - but there is little 
communication about it.


> I gave him half the household goods, and I didn't have to.  
> I refused to ask for alimony, or to pay for my lawyer.  He 
> put the things in a storage shed and then stopped paying the 
> rent.
When you have lost the ones you love, you don't care about anything 
else.  The fact is, he didn't even love you.  He loved his fantasy of 
what he thought his wife, his kids, and fatherhood, would be.  That 
fantasy didn't include working 60 hours/week to buy diapers instead of a 
hot-rod or a stereo.  That fantasy didn't include a mother who only gave 
her breasts to the baby.  That fantasy didn't include desperately wanting 
to make love to your wife and not being able to because it would disturb 
the children.


You filed the papers, but my guess is that you divorced each other long 
before the papers were filed.  It probably started soon after you knew 
you were pregnant.

> I've encouraged him to see his kids, and had him for 
> dinner once, but after the divorce was final he said that it 
> was "too painful" to see me.  I offered to have a third 
> person intervene so that he could see the kids without 
> seeing me.  He refused.  I've had the same number since 
> before our divorce, he doesn't call.  He has made his 
> choices, and now he will probably suffer the consequences.  

He has been feeling the consequences of YOUR choice, since before you 
ever filed the papers.  He can't kill himself, but he is on a 
self-destruct course that you can't change.  If you press it hard enough, 
it will kill him.  Take out a live insurance policy on him, while you 
still can.

> In April of 92 when he still had a phone, I called him and 
> told him I had no heat.  (South Dakota, remember) He had not 
> sent any money.  He told me that was too bad and I was on my 
> own now.   He truly is at the far side of the bell curve.  

Actually, not that far.  Most men experience intense hate, of their 
spouses, themselves, and their children.  The main difference is that I 
got councelling during the divorce.  I looked at what it would take to 
make my life work.  I have seen far side cases where the husband took a 
.44 Magnum and shot his wife and children before shooting himself, because
his wife asked for the divorce.  For most men, taking away a man's wife 
and family is tantamount to threatening his life.  It's like losing and 
arm or a leg.  Women rarely consider that how a man reacts to his enemies 
is how he will react to the woman who threatens divorce.

> Stubborn, lazy, and ignorant.  I should have looked closely 
> at his family structure before I married him.  His father 
> refused to pay child support, and his father before him.

Not only that, your first husband got out of the marriage.  He could 
console himself that you were a two-time loser.  It probably hurts to no 
end your third marriage is a winner.

> Most men take on the responsibility of children out of love 
> for the>mother. 
> This is a good point, one that many people miss.

It is fundamental to the design of the human being.  The warrior would 
kill the irritating noisy creature (often, when they are not his, he does 
kill children).   The woman, who bonds with the child while it is within, 
will give her life to protect her child.  It is one of the few things for 
which she is instinctively willing to kill.

The mother uses the bond (of sex and love) to cause the bond between 
father and child.  The loss of mother and child together is as intense as 
aa woman watching her own children being murdered by soldiers in the 
street.  Men often go to war (or it's equivalent) over such loss.

Our "civilized" culture, which discourages killing, encourages the father 
to "do battle", in the corporate offices, in the workplace.  With the 
incentive (sex, love, bonding) taken away, the job becomes loathsome.

Our "civilized" culture prevents men from killing each other's babies and 
wives.  Because of this, women can afford the luxury of refusing sex and 
love, and eventually she can file for divorce.

> >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.  >Again, you are the exception.  

> Yes, I recognize that.  I like to mention to people as proof 
> that it CAN be done, if everyne's willing to be adult, 
> reasonable, and put the kids first.

I too have been successfully divorced.  I pay my child support, I meet my 
obligations, and I am on good speaking terms with my wife.  I am also 
considered something like a spiritual Guru for my tolerance, wisdom, and 
compassion.  I have been in spiritual and emotional discipline for 35 
years.  I know how I feel.  It takes "Christ-like" acceptance to let them
put the crown of thorns on your testicles, and walk with it for 20 years.

For a brief time, I was seeing a woman who had children.  I remember the 
pain of having to choose between helping the children of the woman I 
loved, or sending my child support check.  The check arrived the 
following morning, the woman left the state the following week.

> >Therein lies the key to not just successful divorces, but 
> also successful >marriages.  
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  
> 
> >When you can give up your right to be right, miracles can 
> >happen.  
> As long as it's in the kids best interests, yes this is 
> true.

Which was in the best interests of your children?

	To stay in the city, in close proximity to your 2nd husband, make him
	wrong, be a victim of his selfishness (I concede his selfishness), and have
	your life be about getting him to pay up. 
OR
	To marry you third husband, get your own income and support system, 
	find a place where the community and the economy would support you, and 
	live and love the life you have!


>>> Re: Late night calls
> >Is he sober?
> NO
As I said before, he's doing "suicide on the installment plan".  He'll be 
dead within a few years, just like the first one.  Problem solved!

> >Is he with someone he loves?
> Actually, I never thought about it, but since he got married 
> in June I haven't gotten any of those late night calls.  
> Good.  Maybe she's keeping him happy.
Perhaps.  Will you give him the chance?

> >Is he happy in the rest of his life?
> How could he be?  He can't get a regular job, because the 
> CSS people are looking for him.  Our daughter is on 
> medicaid, so I have no control over that. 

Congratulations.  You now see why the father's are raising some issues.  
The situation is simple.  Thanks to laws designed to protect you, he 
cannot every be happy with another woman - he has CSS to remind him
that he lost you.  Like I said, he'll be dead soon - problem solved!

> He's lost most of 
> his driving priveledges, not only for back child support, 
> but for DUI.

Isn't it amazing how creatively we can kill ourselves?  A few drinks a 
few drugs and I won't even feel the guard-rail as it pierces my heart.  
This is the thinking of an alcholic in DUI land.  (Remember, I've been
getting them sober for 20 years)

> >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.  
> 
> I don't know anymore if he's working, but his new marriage 
> is supposedly not going well.  He has one of those unique 
> gifts, the ability to fix things, and he refuses to develop 
> it, won't work because his wages would be garnished for 
> child support.  

There are  ways to work "off the books".  You don't get as much, but it's 
more than he'd get after the tax man and the CSS man sucks it out.

> He's had a bad round of luck with 
> >women, and in fit of self-pity, possibly aided with a 
> little liquid >pain-killer,
> It's possible at this point that it may be in solid form as 
> well.

I'll revise my estimate to  a few weeks.  6 months tops.

>  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.  
> 
> Interesting thought.  I really tried to be supportive of him 
> when we divorced.  We had long calls when I told him that I 
> realized I wasn't perfect and I was sorry that his childhood 
> had been so horrendous and I hoped he would find happiness. 
> (I am not a vidictive person) He would call me at first and 
> ask my advice on women.  I'd give it.  But as time went on, 
> and he refused to pay child support, the law started leaning 
> on him and he bacame abusive in his calls.

When the law leans, they lean hard.  They can leave him with as little as 
10% of his income.  That wouldn't even buy a room in a flop-house if he 
made $30/hour.  They can collect about $900/month until he's paid up.  
Given the skills you have described, he could probably earn $10/hour at
hours/week 4.3 weeks/month.  After earning $1700/month - paying $600 in 
taxes, fica,... and your back child support ($900) - he'd be left with
$200/month, about $1/hour to live on.  He can make $3/hour pan-handling.

I know men who have been in this situation.  Eventually they died in
relapse, or a bad dope deal.

> >Your successful second marriage doesn't help by the way.  
> It's just one >more reminder of what a failure he was.
> 
> Third.  It doesn't help that his family adores my new 
> husband and I.  It doesn't help that the whole town took my 
> side.  My former inlaws still refer to me as their daughter 
> and act as though my husband is their son-in-law.  We come 
> off looking like the "good guys," because my husband works 
> hard and takes care of his step-children. 

Great, you didn't just take the three people he loved most, you took away 
his parents, and the whole town too.  What crime was so horrible that you 
take away his entire life?

> Jerry's new wife 
> has tatoos, an eighth-grade education, and has been fired 
> for refusing to wear "proper undergarments", and I'm a 
> senior in college who once wore business suits and carried a 
> briefcase to work.  

Great, he's in self-destruct mode.  This wife is someone who can't hurt 
him.  She can give him sex jollies, but it won't replace you.

> but, he did it to himself.  He was living that way when I 
> met him. 

If he was like that when you met him, why did you marry him?
This is a common pattern.  Women decide to marry an irresponnsible child 
instead of a father and then bring in the troops when he isn't acting 
like a father.  Then they end up on public forums, advocating the 
imprisonment of "Dead Beat Dads".

You married "a grade up", but you still went for a man who is not living 
up to his full potential.  If you make him wrong for it long enough, 
you'll dump him too.

> I encouraged him to make the most of his assets, 
> but he was stuck in that "culture of poverty" I mentioned 
> before.  When we moved to South Dakota, he fell into old 
> habits of cheating people out of money and not working.  I 
> asked to go to counseling, I told him I couldn't live this 
> way, etc.  He controlled what little money we did have, and 
> the straw that broke the camel's back was when I became very 
> ill and he wouldn't give me $25 for medicine I desperately 
> needed, to teach me a lesson. He would lose his wallet out 
> on a drunk, and come home and kick me out of bed because it 
> was "all my fault".  I really did want this marriage to 
> work.  But it takes two.

What posessed you to have children with this man!??  Did you think you 
could play God and turn a slick-talking drunk into a responsible 
productive member of society?  If you wanted a responsible man, why 
didn't you marry one of those "Egg-heads" who helped you with your 
homework and helped you with the term papers.  Any one of them would have 
killed themselves to make you happy.  And you wouldn't have wanted him to.

> >> He says that since I divorced him I am ON MY OWN.
> >
> But when he said this, I had nobody.  I was on welfare and 
> having to live on $450 per month
You made many choice along the road.  You chose to marry "slick jerry" 
instead of the responsible egg-head with glasses.  You chose have his 
child in order to force him to be responsible.  You chose to pressure him 
with the stick instead of using the carrot (as sponsor of over 60 
recovering addicts and grandsponsor of over 2000, I can tell you there is 
always a carrot).

If CSS ever catches up with him, he'll be left with 1/2 that.  Notice 
that his $300/month was less than your $450/month.  He couldn't win once 
you went on welfare.


> I >would reccomend that your husband adopt your daughter.  
> 
> Yes, we are considering this.  It's my understanding that 
> both the children, my daughter and a son, six months old 
> when we divorced, would benefit.  I have been reluctant to 
> sever this last tie, because I was afraid that he would do 
> something drastic, either to us or to himself.  I often feel 
> very sorry for him.  He doesn't know what he's missing.  His 
> son, now four, looks exactly like him.

He's already killing himself.  Having your husband adopt them will give 
the ability to put them on his insurance, will enable you to get a single 
medical plan that covers the entire family.  If your husband does start 
taking and interest - any payments he makes to you are tax deductable to  
him - and he can see the kids if you  want him to.

> If something 
> >happened to you, your ex would take custody - to get 
> revenge at your >daughter.
> Not according to South Dakota law.  According to state 
> family law, the custodial parent can assign custody in a 
> will.  It is the burden of the NCP to prove that the new 
> arrangement is unfit.  I have willed my children to my 
> sister and her husband in the case that my husband doesn't 
> survive me.

So legally, you have taken his children, and the woman he loved, away 
from him, but you  won't let him off the hook with CSS by having your 
husband legally adopt the kids.  Can you imagine the hate he must feel - 
for you, for the kids, for the system!  That man will probably never 
love  anyone (including his current wife) again!

> 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.
> Probably.  I don't think he works much, though.  I never 
> wanted him to get this way, but how was I to prevent it?  I 
> couldn't stay married to him.

When he said "your on your own", you could have taken him at his word and 
arranged for your new husband to adopt as soon as possible.  You could 
have avoided the irresponsible men.  You could have married someone who 
had demonstrated responsibility.  
	Thats right "responsibility +love = BORING"

This is the first line of attack.  This is the domain which will make the 
biggest difference.  Create role models of responsible people.  My father 
WAS like Robert Young (father knows best).  Meanwhile, responsible men 
are punished and socially casterated while "hip,slick, & cool" men like 
jerry walk around living off "back alley jobs" and "trick money".

> >Whose children?  
> 
> Well, to be universal I'd have to say all, but of course 
> being human I have to say I protect mine first.  I'm very 
> good at it, too.

You did what is actually being advocated by the Fathers group.  You found 
a responsible partner who would take care of you and the children.  So 
did my wife (she just wants the cash from me).

> I've devoted the last five years of my life to a double 
> major in Geology and Secondary Education.  I've spent a lot 
> of time training myself to care about other people's 
> children.  So I've reached a point where my main concern is 
> the children.  There is too much focus on parent's rights.  

There is too much focus on the "quick fix" solution to problems that are 
fundamental to our culture.  Welfare mothers and dead-beat dads are just 
a symptom of a much bigger problem.  Until we address the fundamental 
value systems that make irresponsibility sexually attractive and make 
responnsibility a "Sucker's game".  We will only see an increase in
poverty-babies.  Worse yet, we will see a "Republican Backlash" that will 
take draconian measures (you wouldn't be living on a Dakota ranch) 
resembling the measures taken in Warsaw in 1939.

> The issue should be the children.  Even if it means making 
> some adults uncomfortable.  You mention your son is a 
> skinhead.  That's unfortunate.  I'm sorry for you in this 
> situation.  I hope he learns that the road he is on is the 
> wrong one, and I'm sorry for your loss.  I do have a child 
> with some behavioral problems, problems that we believe stem 
> from her fathers alcohol abuse.  I know it can be almost 
> like losing a child to death when they turn off the right 
> path.

My son is responsible, intelligent, and good.  He just has been allowed 
to learn the same fundamentalist values that would let fundamentalist 
kids beat me up for being a "sissy" or a "nerd" when I was his age.
That particular area distresses me.

On December 27th I turn 40 years old.  I was a Virgin until I was 21, was 
celebate for the next 3 years, in a platonic marriage for 9 years, and 
celebate for the next 6 years.   I have 11 years of child support left,
and I have worked 50 hours/week for 35 years.  I am 6' tall, nice looking,
but "undesirable" because I am a "father figure" and a "sissy".  I have 
spent 10 years in environments where women outnumbered men 10-1, and was
still celebate - not by choice.  I quit drinking 18 years ago, and have 
not haad a drink or drug inn 15 years.


I'm posting e-mail on christmas eve

> Regards,
> 
> Misty Smith-Beringer 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 
> Taboos are political.  They exist to keep people from 
> thinking independently, which might make them aware 
> that they are oppressed.  --M. French
> 

Merry Christmas.
	Rex Ballard.

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Dec 26 14:38:55 1995
Status: O
X-Status: