In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, fathers wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Loui Tucker wrote:
> > 
> > I'm reading the same three goals over and over.
> > 
> > 1. Stop All Child Support Payments
Most NCPs advocate a Child Support responsibility which reflects:
	Loss of Spouse, emotional, logistical, and social/community support.
	Abuse, Alcholism, Addiction, Adultery... Committed by both parties.  
	The current laws presume that the man is an adulterous, drunken, 
abusive rapist from whom the natural mother and children must be 
protected.  Where there are official record of "family disturbance", 
DUIs, and related supporting evidence, it should be considered, but the 
state should not MANDATE a MINIMUM based on the ASSUMPTION of GUILT by 
ASSOCIATION.  This is discrimination on the basis of sex, and denial of 
due process of law.
	None of the irresponsibilities of the CP (Mother) are considered 
unless there is a full-fledged custody battle.  Unless the father can 
prove - at his own expense - that the mother's behaviour constitutes an 
clear and present danger to the children, the courts usually find for the 
mother.  Issues such as irresponsible behavior of mom's boyfriend, lover, 
or subsequent husband, are considered irrelevant.

The current child support structures require that a father pay the 
majority of the houshold expenses for not only the children, but also for 
the custodial parent.

The third concern has been the proposed "enforcement" of child support 
laws by depriving men of Liberty, Property, and Life based on a voluntary 
agreement or hearing which did not constitute due process of law.

> > 2. Abolish the Family Court System and Divorce Lawyers

The current family court advocy system thrives on ignorance, and the 
requirement that the "primary income earner" pay the legal fees of the 
"secondary income earner" based exclusively on the most recent year's 
1040 tax return.  Any woman considering divorce can just "quit her job to 
be with the kids" for 12 months and look like a "charity case".  Only 
during the custody/child support hearing can the father's lawyer "impute 
income" in hopes of reducing the child support a mere 2%.

A "mediation" - a hearing in which both parents, and future parents can 
acheive a consensus which is neither unjustly punitive, nor leaves the CP 
and children destitute might be worth considering.

Advocy thrives on win/lose thinking.  Mediation is based on win/win 
thinking.  The cost to the state for a settlement to which both parties 
can abide voluntarily, easily outweighs the cost of litigation and 
enforcement of mandates.

> > 3. Legal Custody Uniformly Granted to Fathers

For a number of reasons, the courts grant custody to the mother in 
"uncontested" divorces.  Uncontested may only mean that the father does 
not have the resources to sponsor a custody battle.

There is no provision for a "pro forma" request for custody (allowing the 
judge to review records from police departments, social services 
agencies, and consider community service contributed by both parents.

> > Certainly all these goals will make those same angry divorced men
> > very happy. 

When you have lost the woman you love, the children you love, and the 
home you have been working for since you were 6 years old, a reduction in 
child support, a more compassionate hearing

> And make some very insecure children very secure.  And reduce the divorce 
> rate 90%.  And reduce the prison incarceration rate 75%.  And reduce rape 
> and murder by maybe half.  And increase the US level of "Personal 
> Savings" higher than Rhwanda.  And increase US incomes by 3 times back to 
> their levels of 1973.

Divorce has become a such a common practice that it ranks next to having 
children as a "likely to occur event".  Sometimes, divorce is very 
appropriate.  The husband IS abusive, the police HAVE been called in on 
family disturbance calls, the children have SCARS from being beaten with 
electrical cords, and the mothers are RAPED in front of the children 
every night.  In some neighborhoods of some cities, violence and abuse is 
such a way of life that it actually becomes equated with love.  A woman 
can prove her love by letting her man beat her in front of his friends.

There is another group of men who must pay the penalty of "guilt by 
association".  The same thinking that once kept black men from becoming 
lawyers or kept women from becoming corporate executives no forces 
innocent men to pay the penalties for others who "appear to be the same".
These men are treated like rapists, criminals, and thugs by a system 
designed for "expedient action".  To the family court judge, the 
wife-beater and child molester cannot be differentiated from the cub 
scout master, loving father, and the devoted husband wishing to let his 
wife find happiness wherever she must, even if it's in the arms of 
another man, the practitioner of unconditional love.  He is often forced 
to prove his love by submitting himself to poverty for the sake of 
children he may never see again and a wife who may have been pretending 
to love him from the time the children were conceived to the day of the 
final decree.  In some cases, it is only after the final decree that she 
will show her contempt for this "wimp" by denying visitation, bringing 
her lover/husband to family events, or even showing up at his office in a 
sleazy outfit to demand that they garnish his paycheck.

We spend very little time looking at the causes of the divorce rate.  We 
spend more time learning the fundamentals of driving an automobile than 
we spend learning the fundamentals of maintain a marriage.  We fall in 
love with a fantasy at age 12 and get married at age 30.  It is only 
after she has a child or two that we wake up and discover that she never 
will be our fantasy woman and we will never be her fantasy man.  Trying 
to override 20 years of Pavlovian programming in 30-60 hours of "couples 
tharapy" is like trying to drain Lake Erie with a tablespoon.

The current culture devalues responsibility.  The responsible, 
productive, studious male is a "Nerd".  The irresponsible, violent, 
dangerious, alcholic/addict, sexually promiscous man is a "hot stud".

Responsible men are forced to shoulder the primary burden of 2 housholds 
or more.  "Hot Studs" often drop out of school, join the army for a few 
years, and injure themselves trying to lift a bag of cement, by the time 
they're age 30.  They even collect "disability" on the basis that they 
are alcoholics and drug addicts.

> Maybe this would even make some mothers happy.

I tried to make my wife happy for 10 years.  I even let her have her 
lover, and even let her marry him.  She may never be "happy".  I would 
like to see her, and her new husband, become responsible.  I'd like to 
see her finish college (after 6 years she should be "cooked" but she 
changes her major every 6 months).  I'd even like to see her husband 
finish college.  At least one of them could get a JOB.  Until then, I 
have to pay their HOUSE PAYMENT (which they bought in their name, using 
my income to qualify for the mortgage).  I have to pay for their CAR, 
Food, clothing, and even their trips to Disneyland.  I also pay the
$30,000 in taxes and FICA which they receive as Disability and AFDC.  Add 
to that $400/month for health insurance.  The first 3 years were the 
hardest.  I got custody of most of the Debts.  Then she declared 
bankruptcy and left me with additional debts.

> > I don't think it's going to work if you only stop child support payments,
> > but still give custody to mothers. Women will simply look for Husband #2
> > while still married to Husband #1 and won't leave the first marriage until
> > another means of financial support is lined up, which will mean increased
> > infidelity and promis- cuity, with sexually transmitted diseases making
> > new inroads in otherwise safe couples. 

It wouldn't be so bad if her next husband was Donald TRUMP.  Most women 
shopping for a second "father of their children" are looking for a "Hot 
Stud" with lots of spare time.  Now that she has child support, she 
doesn't need "A Wallet", she needs "A Babysitter".  Men on workman's 
comp, disability, or unemployment are prime candidates.

> Men don't respect adulterers.  Unfortunately, right now government not 
> only respects them but funds them.  Stop the funding, and adulterers will 
> live under the social stigma they richly deserve.

Divorce is a structure for Serial Polygamy.  It would probably be better 
to encourage the couple to stay together until a new, suitable substitute 
parent could be found.  It would be even better if people could learn 
what it takes to sustain one marriage and fullfill that marriage.

> Then -- if you want to find "hubby #2", he will be from the same gutter 
> adulterers are from.  But at least the children will stay in the 
> "fincially and emotionally secure environment" which they should have 
> REMAINED in all along, and not live in "second families" where they are 7 
> to 15 times more likely to be abused, go to prison, be undereducated, etc.

Child Custody is a sticky situation no matter how you play it.  
Circumstances change from year to year.  Dad could get custody and find 
his children threatened when his "trophy wife" has her own children to 
put ahead of his.  He won't be there to see the abuse while he is at 
work, and he might not believe his own children.

Generous visitation, partnership between all of the parents and 
step-parents, along with grandparents, exxtended families, and other 
community resources can help track and reccomend any "mid-course 
corrections".

Sometimes, a man just "wants out".  It's too painful or frustrating to 
try and love and lose every 2 weeks.  The current structure forces him to 
suffer for 20 years.  A more humane solution would be to have him pay for 
college tuition for 4 years and then "let him go".

> > Also, once she's moved in with Husband #2, where is the incentive to
> > promote visitation with the biological father of the children?  He's not
> > paying support, why should she encourage the kids to stay in touch with
> > Dad? Out of the goodness of her heart? Think the courts (unless you
> > abolish them) are going to jump at the opportunity for force mother to
> > provide visitation when the biological father is no longer contributing
> > anything to their financial well-being? 
> 
> Even those "contributing" do not get enforcement by the courts of 
> "visitation", which is a demeaning word and concept.  Mothers need to use 
> the children as hostages for income, and the courts comply with this 
> hostage situation.  Fathers don't need to us the kids as hostages, 
> because they don't need money from mothers. 

Child support and visitation are treated as indepent issues.  The only 
stipulation is that the LESS visitation the father gets, the MORE he has 
to pay.  Lawyers routinely tell women not to let the husband take the 
kids for more than 4 nights/month (every other week) because if he sees 
them 2 nights/week he will only have to pay 75% of the child support.

It isn't hard to get a restraining order.  Children, reunited with a man 
they loved, reminded of the love and life they had with their father, 
then seperated, every two weeks for years, is like losing a loved one 
over and over again.  It's incredibly hard on the father, who has the 
maturity to deal with it responsibly.  The children often react more 
instinctively.  They express their frustration by expressing hate toward 
their mother, their father, their stepfather, and themselves.  The 
mother, and misguided social workers assume that this is a result of some 
"unnatural relationship" between the child and the natural father.  It is 
accurate, the unnatural relationship was created by the divorce in the 
first place.  But the disruptive behavior often results in a restraining 
order.  The father often tries to retaliate by witholding child-support.  
The mother, and the court, move swiftly to force the man to pay, by 
garnishing his check.  Ultimately, the father must either resort to 
"panhandling" or must work for the little that remains of his check.  
Enough for a "share" or a studio apartment, and the resources he needs 
for work (clunker car, work-clothes, mediocre food, ...).  He may make 
more money than 95% of the men in the country, but he is must live at a 
level below the poverty line.  He may have worked and studied 50 
hours/week since he was 6 years old in hopes of being prince charming to 
his "Cinderella", but now he gets to pay for the step-sister.

> > I don't think so. If you abolish
> > child support payments, but somehow manage to maintain the father's right
> > to visitation, how do you enforce it without a court system?  Contact the
> > police every time you want to see your kids and have them escort over to
> > your ex-wife house? What if she moves out of state without your knowledge
> > and consent? 

The irony is that there is something called "supervised visitation", a 
legal maneuver which forces the visiting father to have someone supervise 
his visitation.  If the mother chooses someone who is always "very very 
busy", or her husband, then she can count on that person to not be 
available when the appointed time arrives.  The father cannot have 
someone of his choosing there to "watch the watcher".

> "Child support" payments DO NOT increase "visitation" today, and 
> eliminating them would not increase it by as much as father custody would 
> -- though there are numerous cases where "child support" is paid just to 
> keep the little lady happy so she doesn't snatch the kids and run off to 
> Texas.

Many states only allow the stipulation that the father can deduct cost of 
travel from the child support if the woman leaves the state.  It isn't 
too hard to find a state that won't enforce that either.  Finally, if 
daddy's checks get "lost in the mail" for a few months, he can't visit 
anyway because he will be arrested the minute he shows up to give the 
kids a hug.

> > This does, of course, address the problem of fatherless households. 
> > Husband #2 provides the new male role model.  Theoretically this should be
> > the perfect solution. Of course, he's not the biological father, but is
> > one male role model as good as another?  Do father want just any man
> > raising our biological offspring? 

Stepfathers have a very different relationship to the children.  Unless 
the Stepfather assumes the full rights and responsibilities of being the 
father, he is more of an "interested spectator and cheerleader" in the 
entire family.  If his primary relationship with the mother sours, he may 
retaliate by taking actions against the stepchildren.  Incest, violence, 
and rape are common in the lives of step-children.  Sometimes the 
children will even bait the step-father as a way of "getting even".

> Wrong.  The biggest threat to children is single-mother households.  The 
> SECOND biggest threat is STEP-FATHERS, who are 7 times more likely to 
> abuse children than biological fathers, not to mention all of the other 
> things that biological fathers want for their own children that 
> step-fathers don't even think about.

Again, the big question is:
	"Is this man willing to match or exceed the commitment made by the 
	natural father?".  If he was really twice the man the natural father 
was, he would bear full responsibility.  The natural mother would request 
that the courts reduce or eliminate the child support.

Child support should be treated as a transitional program.  It gives the 
mother time to plan a transition from dependence on the father to 
independence or dependence on another partner.  The father made a 20 year 
commitment to the children based on the belief that the mother was making 
a 20 year commitment to him.  Most marriages are originally declared as 
lifetime commitments ("Til death us do part").  Imagine signing a 20 year 
lease on a building which is then torched by the landlord.  Would the 
landlord have a "right" to the remaining 20 years worth of payments?

> > If she decides to move out prior to snagging Husband #2, she'll work and
> > put the kids in daycare or with her mother, or she'll go on welfare, or
> > some other alternative -- while keeping her eyes open for a new man. 

The primary focus will not be for another "Wallet" it will be for "free 
day care".  Guess who she's gonna meet that is available at 3:00 PM in 
the afternoon.  Child Molesters, Bums, and Drunks!

> > Again, without child support coming in, is she going to encourage
> > visitation? I doubt it. If she's angry enough, she'll move and leave no
> > forwarding address. 



> In case you hadn't noticed, welfare is being eliminated, and government 
> has finally wised up to this concept of mothers using the children as 
> pawns to manipulate both fathers, children, and government.  This is 
> ending, as we speak.  This model you draw above is ending.  There will be 
> no more "Husband #2"s, and the children will remain in their secure 
> environments.
> 
> 
> > If she stays in touch, she'll use the kids as bait
> > ("You want to see the kids this weekend?  Well, perhaps you could come up
> > with some cash so I can go grocery shopping for them while you've got them
> > for the day?") to get some financial support out of the ex-husband. Call
> > it blackmail if you want, but that will probably be how it will work.  If
> > she meets some new man, she'll use the ex-husband to act as a free
> > babysitter while she goes out and parties. Once she's got Husband #2 --
> > you're back to the previous scenario. 
> > 
> 
> This IS how it works now.  This IS what is ending, now.  Thank you for 
> your documentation of this scenario, but it is already well documented.  
> This is not going to be the situation next year, because the plans to 
> correct this are already in place and just now being implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> > And what if Husband #2 turns out to be an alcoholic child abuser? What if
> > he gets the ex-wife and kids involved in some wacko religious court? If
> > you abolish the court system, what recourse do you have? Kidnap your own
> > kids? 
> 
> This is what happens with step-fathers.  But you can't "kidnap" your own 
> kids.  This is a feminist concept which femnists think applies only to a 
> man, and never to a mother.  Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Hire a hit man to take out Hubby #2? Call the cops? At least with a
> > court system of some kind (I'm not saying we shouldn't reform the system
> > we have...) there would be a fighting chance. Without a court system you'd
> > have no chance at all.  You may go into court now with one hand tied
> > behind your back, but at least you can put up a fight. Without some sort
> > of court system (with or without lawyers), you'd have BOTH hands behind
> > your back and no place to take your complaint! 
> > 
> 
> There is something you have not gotten the drift about here.  The family 
> court system benefits NOT ONE SINGLE FATHER.  The "system" NEVER makes a 
> reasonable parental decision.  It only makes the decision which will COST 
> both parents (and the children in the long run) the maximum amount of 
> money, and NEVER makes a decision "in the best interest of the child".
> 
> Not one single father would miss the existing structure.  If it were 
> completely and totaly abolished at 10:00 AM tomorrow, by 5 PM tomorrow 
> our social pathology would END.
> 
> Mothers THINK they benefit from the court system, but they do not
> understand how DESTRUCTIVE it has been, for the most part.  The only
> mothers who see this are the "second wives" you discuss here, and the only
> reason they are concerned is because they see money which should be
> supporting her "second household" instead going to the "first wife".  Most
> of them have not given a second thought to what has happened to the
> economy and the savings rate or even the first children as a result of
> this idiotic bureaucracy. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Okay, so that might not work, so instead you'd mandate sole custody to
> > fathers.  Will you replace Fatherlessness with a new and different, but
> > damaging social problem -- Motherlessness.  Is your message that, since
> > two-parent families (meaning a man with a compliant, not uppitty, female)
> > or a single-male-headed household are the only good ones, that women
> > aren't really necessary unless they are submissive baby factories?  Does
> > patriarchy mean "Keep her pregnant, pop out the kids, and dump her if she
> > becomes a problem"? Will you have a generation of girls without role
> > models, that grow up not knowing how to be a mother? 
> 
> No.  The idea is to eliminate single-parent households in the first 
> place, and a 90% drop in the divorce rate would help.  BUT -- if the 
> remaining 10% of divorces which still occrred were to become motherless 
> rather than fatherless, every bit of statistical evidence is that the 
> children of these households would fare better than even the children of 
> 2-parent households.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Who will show them
> > how to maintain a marriage?  Will they grow up distrusting the institution
> > of marriage and be reluctant to participate? 
> > 
> 
> What?  This can't be a serious question!  You are joking here, right?
> 
> In case you are not joking, exactly WHAT do you think happens to children 
> of divorced parents, or of single-mother households?  Do you think they 
> learn about "maintaining marriages" or even want to get involved in the 
> nightmares that they have seen their fathers go through?
> 
> Never.  This is part of the reason government must play an assertive 
> family role -- too many bad role models are teaching the wrong thing 
> about families.
> 
> 
> > Ah, you say, but if you eliminate child support and/or custody it will
> > make women stop before they consider divorce in the first place. They'll
> > stay in their marriages, you say. Maybe some would. And you think they'll
> > smile and say, "Oh, dear, if I ask for a divorce I'll lose the kids. I
> > guess this just provides me with a wonderful opportunity for personal
> > growth, a marvelous, god-given chance to work on my marriage and, oh, what
> > fun that will be! I'm so happy!"  Yeah, sure! Consider yourself: if you
> > are forced by circumstances to stay in a situation (job, relationship,
> > social activity), for whatever reasons -- do you just make the best of it
> > and smile, smile, smile?  Or do you feel your blood boiling and the
> > tension mounting? I think you're going to have a lot of angry women forced
> > to stay where they don't want to be, tensions rising between the couple,
> > and stress radiating into the family.  I foresee an increase in domestic
> > violence and child abuse.  I was raised in a home where my parents stayed
> > together and they fought almost daily. I went to sleep to the sound of
> > screams and curses. I don't have a lot of respect for my mother OR my
> > father. 
> 
> You foresee an increase in family violence based on WHAT?  It is feminism 
> which led to women's right to vote which led to women's liberation which 
> led to the "independent woman" which produced the greatest domestic 
> violence in the world, not to mention all of the other social pathology.  
> It is noteworthy that MOST of the world, including countries with 
> incredibly robust economies like Japan and Korea, have almost no domestic 
> violence, and women in these countries RESPECT motherhood and their 
> respctive roles.  Regardles of how the US media paints these cultures as 
> "changing" or "modernizing", they will never go down the path we took, 
> especially after seeing what it has done to us.  Not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > If you eliminate the woman's "incentive" to divorce, what about the man's
> > incentive to STAY in the marriage? Currently men who are unhappy look at
> > the cost of divorce -- they pay child support, their own attorney's fees,
> > and frequently the fees of the wife's attorney -- and they opt to stay in
> > the situation, however bad it might be. If you eliminate child support
> > and/or lawyers and the court system, and guarantee them custody of the
> > kids, what's going to keep men in marriages? And don't give me a lot of
> > bullshit about men honoring their committments and being responsible and
> > being disciplined. All those men who are unhappily married but not filing
> > for divorce because of the expense will opt out.  If men are filing for
> > divorce now, despite the financial perils, that number will surely rise if
> > all financial obstacles are eliminated. Men could just wait for the
> > desired number of children to be produced and discard the troublesome
> > woman. He can support the kids himself because he's making all the money,
> > right? If he wants a female around he can remarry someone younger and
> > prettier and more agreeable, or hire a nanny and a cook/housekeeper if he
> > wants a female role model for the kids without the relationship
> > responsbilities. What's his incentive to stay? 
> 
> This might be a serious concern of yours.  But it is not supported by the 
> historical facts, nor by comparisons to other countries.  Italy, Japan, 
> Korea, and many other countries with a presumption of father custody have 
> divorce rates as low as one-twentieth (1/20th) of ours.  Even in the US 
> at the turn of the century the presumption was father custody, and the 
> divorce rate was one tenth (1/10th) of today's rate.
> 
> The feminist media likes to hype the boss who took off with the secretary,
> but this is far less a threat than the 85% of the wives who divorced
> because they wanted to "find themselves". As long as they are financially 
> rewarded with incomes which exceed their value in the laborforce by 
> anywhere from 30% to 10 times (and without having to keep a business 
> schedule), and get the kids and the house and the car in the process, 
> naturally they are going to "find themselves".  Wish I could "find 
> myself" like this.
> 
> > 
> > I agree that providing incentives for women to divorce doesn't make sense,
> > but forcing women to stay married through disincentive, or removing all
> > disincentives from men, just doesn't make sense to me either. 
> > 
> 
> You can't confuse the two.  FORCE is what Calfornia is trying to do by 
> removing drivers' licenses from fathers who don't/can't pay "child 
> support", which removes their ability to work, which eliminates their 
> incomes, which removes their ability to pay "Child support" and give the 
> state an excuse to take their cars.  This is FORCE.
> 
> Eliminating FINANCIAL INCENTIVES is a different thing than FORCE.  Nobody 
> is FORCED to change companies when another company pays them a higher 
> salary, and women won't be FORCED to stay in marriages they don't like if 
> the luxury of having the house, the kids, the car, and the money is 
> removed and they instead must enter the workforce if they get divorced.  
> But instead of saying I had to "find myself" maybe those who still get 
> divorced will be saying "I really made a wrong choice in a husband", and 
> of course they will think harder about what they are doing before they 
> get married.
> 
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see a focus on divorce and marriage that doesn't boil down to
> > money and money alone. Maybe that's why you've labeled me a feminist --
> > because I don't see the world through money-colored glasses, despite my
> > 6-figure income. 
> > 
> > Save money by eliminating child support 
> > Save money by eliminating attorneys 
> > Save money by eliminating the court sytem 
> > Save money because crime will decrease when fathers are in control 
> > Save money because there will be reduced need for the prison system 
> > Save money by reducing welfare roles
> > Save money by improving education levels, making better employees. 
> > Savemoney by increasing the savings rate 
> > Save money by pushing women out of the workforce, freeing up jobs for men 
> > Oh, and coincidentally, society (that is, men) will be better off, .... 
> > maybe. 
> 
> 
> If you have a six-figure income, then why do you keep forgetting 
> something anybody with a six-figure income should have at the tip of 
> their tongue:
> 
> We don't have money to "save".  We are $4.8 Trillion in debt.  The 
> average household owes $78,000 and has a supposed "savings" of $4,899.  
> No matter which inflation factor you use, or which newspaper you read, we 
> are in far worse shape than Rhwanda.
> 
> And now you are going to look for non-monetary solutions, or assume that 
> "society (that is, men)" or even women will NOT be better off?
> 
> 
> The fact that you were hired by affirmative action and now earn a 
> six-figure income, and still don't understand this basic problem with our 
> society, and now want to propose a non-money solution -- should give you 
> a clue about why this simple problem has not yet been solved.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Is that the only reason we want people to be married and stay in their
> > families and raise their children and not divorce -- so men alone can
> > better decide how and where and when and on whom their money is spent? Is
> > the labor provided by the women completely and totally without value? 
> 
> Nobody said it was completely without value.  The value is considerably 
> less than you think it is, but it is not completely without value.  But 
> women like to pretend that the money earned by men is just coincidental, 
> and that their contribution to the household is more important than his
> income  -- even if it takes 70 hours per week to earn in a competitive, 
> emotional, demanding corporation.  What's fair about that?  He might be 
> paying the taxes which fund 3 fatherless households on welfare, running a 
> company which feeds 100 families, paying the expenses for his own 
> household of say 5, and we are supposed to pretend that his wife who 
> takes care of a house which would cost $600 per month for a housekeeper 
> is providing an "equal" contribution?
> 
> Right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If
> > it's really cheaper to hire a maid, housekeeper, cook, nanny, etc., why
> > don't we just encourage families to do that? 
> 
> Men could do this, but they don't because they want "traditional" 
> families.  Government won't let them have "traditional" families.
> 
> 
> 
> Is the perfect marriage one
> > where both mother and father both work, earn precisely the same amount of
> > money, spend their own money however they want (on the kids, on
> > themselves, on the house, whatever), and contribute equally to a fund from
> > which they hire a bunch of neutral third parties (nanny, cook,
> > housecleaner, etc. ) to do the work neither party wants to do for free?
> > (Think of the jobs such a scenario would create for all the single and
> > divorce women!) Would men AND the feminists be happy then? Or is the only
> > possible, conceivable, imaginable model for marriage based on the Donna
> > Reed Show? 
> > 
> 
> At this point, "perfect" solutions are not as preferable as solutions 
> which keep our society from totally imploding.  You can't demand a 
> continution of the status quo unless youcompletely, totally ignore the 
> statistical facts.  Everything might look OK to you, and the TV said 
> stocks are up, and the car hasn't been repossessed, so everything must be OK?
> 
> This kind of thinking is coming to a swift end, and maybe by necessity 
> rather than plan.
> 
> 
> > If that is the sole acceptable goal, without possibility of amendment or
> > modification, no room for discussion or compromise, then why discuss it
> > further? 
> > 
> > You could hang out a sign on this discussion group: Park your opinions
> > that the door, because only my viewpoint is acceptable.  Sign here if you
> > want to return to the 1800's.  Perhaps that was my mistake: I thought in
> > this forum there would be room for some debate and differences of approach
> > to the problem.  It appears there is not. Why not state it clearly so I
> > can just check out of this hotel? 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of room for debate.  Just don't come to the debate 
> without facts to support your opinions.  You posted 24 common 
> misperceptions, and when confronted with the facts which refute your 
> misperceptions, rather than defending your position, you want to throw 
> out "money" (i.e., the facts) so you don't have to worry about it.
> 
> If you choose not to worry about it, so be it.  It is not something we 
> can throw out though.
> 
> I appreciate your participation in this, and welcome your reply, but will 
> understand if you ignore this.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> 
> John Knight
> 
> 

	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard




From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Jan 19 05:31:40 1996