In-Reply-To: <960212135138_420674888@emout08.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 



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

Summary:  Your agenda is showing.

On Mon, 12 Feb 1996 JoinTMI@aol.com wrote:

> Rex Ballard  wrote:
> >> The central issue is WHO GETS THE KIDS. Whoever gets them wins the game. 

Many men are divorced by a mutually negotiated settlement.  They look at 
the situation as it stands at the time of the marriage.  They look at 
what resources they have available, what resources they can provide, and 
jointly decide on a "Joint Custody with Mother as Primary Physical 
Custodian".

The perception of the courts is biased against the man.  If, prior to the 
final decree, the father points out that he has a new wife "lined up" to 
help take care of the kids, he will be perceived as a philanderer and an 
adulterer.  If the woman has been the primary care provider during the 
marriage, and the man has been the primary income provider, logic 
dictates that giving the father primary physical custody would result in 
a reduction in is effectiveness in the workplace and giving him new 
responsibilities for which he may not be properly trained.  With no 
evidence to the contrary, the is the ASSUMPTION made by the courts, based 
on statistical evidence and cultural norms.

I have known several men who were able to demonstrate that these cultural 
norms did not apply.  They were able to demonstrate that they were 
providing care for 15-20 hours/day and that their wife was only providing 
care 4-9 hours/day.  The men often had to negotiate or forfiet a huge 
percentage of the child support that would have been paid under DHHS 
"Wisconsin Guidelines", but they were awarded custody.

The other occaision where I have seen men get custody is when their wife 
was a convicted felon, court ordered into psychiatric care, or had 
previous court actions indicating alcoholism or drug addiction (DWIs).

As a political "Base", the number of men who actually fought a 
full-fledged custody battle and still "Lost the Kids" is relatively 
small.  Probably less than 1% of the general population.

Unfortunately, most custody and support dicisions are made based on 
statistical assumptions rather than on evidence or investigation.  Due 
Process at the initial phase is very expensive - lawyers charge 
$300-400/hour, investigators charge $100-200/hour, paralegals run 
$100/hour, and Social workers run anywhere from $50-200/hour.  If the man 
is earning $40/hour it will be hard to wage a custody battle that will 
cost him as much as 10 times his annual salary.

Without some home-equity, as subtantial 401K account, and a substantial 
IRA, it is difficult to wage a custody battle.

One important thing to note is that women plan their divorces well in 
advance.  Many plan the date based on a mile-stone such as the children 
starting school, the children driving cars, or the children graduating.  
Men on the other hand, do everything they can to deny the possibility.

> >Everything in our culture is designed to insulate the father from the 
> kids.  
> 
> Half the culture is male. Martians didn't make things the way they are. If
> things are bad, men let them get that way.
> 
> >> The wonder, the sheer overwhelming wonder of it all, is men ACCEPT that!
> 
> >Not all of them do!  
> 
> Most do.
> 
> >The days when you could just withhold the payments are over. 
> 
> Why? Who changed the law? What did men do when hearings to change the law
> were on-going? 
> 
> >It only takes "balls" to fertilize an ovum.  It takes "A heart full of 
> grace and a soul full of love" to be a father who empowers the children 
> AND the mother.
> 
> It takes balls to fertilize eggs, AND keep the kids.
> 
> >The perception of fathers who pay their child support as "wimps" and 
> "nutless wonders" denies the true quality of paternal commitment.  
> 
> Bullshit. The issue is not "paternal commitment." It's "What is paternity,
> post divorce.?" If bills are unjust, and fathers did nothing to stop their
> becoming laws, and don't protest the enacted laws, they ARE ball-less
> wonders. 
> 
> >The men of India...[are] honored member of the community.  
> 
> What if, after all their work, their wives took the money, dumped them, and
> forced them to stay in the USA working their asses off? Then they'd be like
> American men. 
> 
> >An American Man who lives in a studio apartment and drives a 10-year-old
> Datsun so that he can pay his child support is called a gutless wonder. 
> 
> Yes. He'll cough up money, post facto, but won't fight unjust laws when
> there's still time. 
> 
> >He is not respected,... is publicly humiliated...
> 
> Because he...TAKES IT! 
> 
> >> Men could have stopped this any time they wanted to...They chose not to.
> 
> >The perception that "Real Men don't eat quiche"...is the problem in the
> first place.
> 
> So? If laws OR perceptions mattered, men would have countered them.
> 
> >The fact is that most of the fathers who are hardest hit...made Service,
> Love, Commitment, and Integrity the cornerstones of their lives.  
> 
> Perhaps they should have added Brains and Balls to their repertoire.
> 
> >They will pay their child support because they promised to support the child
> for 20 years. 
> 
> First, I thought "parents" made that commitment, not just fathers.
> 
> Second, the age of majority is 18 in many places. 
> 
> Third, the "promise" was made as part of an intact family.
> 
> > It doesn't matter that the mother broke her word, the man made this promise
> to himself. 
> 
> Then let him keep his word, and his mouth shut. Let him cough up the dough
> and quit bitching. "Nobly suffer" and leave the rest of us alone. Give him a
> gold-plated doormat when he's done his penance.
> 
> >The question isn't whether he will pay child support, it is how much he must
> pay.  
> 
> In America, he'll pay as much as the one who DOESN'T pay decides. 
> 
> >If being true to his word means that he ends up sleeping in a flop-house or
> a "no-tell motel", he will do it.
> 
> Then he's a fool. There's no "nobility" in playing the sap.
> 
> >Even if she is a shrew and sleeps around with an entire football team, he
> will be fiercely loyal to his trust of her.
> 
> What an idiot! 
> 
> ("Calling Mr. Quixote!")  
> 
> >This is true Love...
> 
> It's true stupidity. And probably why he was dumped in the first place.
> 
> >> Will any group fight this bill? No. They grouse online, but that's all.
> 
> >The bill was Vetoed. It was too draconian for "Bounty Hunter Bill 
> Clinton".
> 
> He didn't want "burdens" placed on welfare moms. He LOVED the new ones on
> men.
> 
> >> Kiss your rights goodbye, gents. You're the new whipping-boys of the
> world.
> 
> >The whipping boy of England was responsible for training the next Prince 
> of Wales. 
> 
> Not, of course, becoming one himself (another "doormat"!).
> 
> >He would whip his own son because he could not harm the Prince.  
> 
> How nice. Did he whip his daughter, too? After all, she wasn't the Prince,
> either.
> 
> >Perhaps this is why the English Monarchy has lasted so long!
> 
> Yeppers. And the British Empire, too. 
> 
> >Eventually, left uncorrected, the culture will degenerate into a "laws of 
> the Street".... 
> 
> Who will "correct" this? Doormat Men?
> 
> >Males may not be killed immediately, but they will driven out of the 
> community when their unbridled puberty and limbic behavior - untempered 
> by the discipline of other men...
> 
> "Other men"? You mean the "noble" loons living in cheap motels, while their
> "fiercely"-screwing wives take on football teams?
> 
> >Over time, we can look forward to another "Dark Ages". 
> 
> It's here now.  Wake up and smell the feminure!
> 
> >15 Million women were tortured and killed by the Inquisition.
> 
> Gotta start somewhere.
> 
> >(Merlin was taught by Elaine-the lady of the Lake, Nimue the Nyph, and 
> Morgana the Fairie). 
> 
> Get some air, El Whipping Boy. Were you also Peter Pan's tailor?
> 
> >If "King Bill" and his Ministers (and his successors) insist on revoking 
> the original 10 bill of rights, the consequences are predictable.
> 
> Again, who will stop him...emasculated men? 
> 
> >Robert, are you offering to take that first bullet?
> 
> No. Your cyberposts are long-winded enough to win the "bullet surprise" in
> fiction. 
> 
> >We need to decide what would honor the dignities and commitments of Men,
> Women, and Children.  What fundamental rights are being advocated?  
> 
> Why make a big, rambling, roundabout screed about this? It's pretty simple:
> men are getting fucked. Equity has fled the land. You think endless cyber
> argle-bargle will change that?
> 
> >Answer these and you may have a cause worth dying for.
> 
> Earth to Rex: How about one LIVING for?
> 
> -Robert
> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Feb 16 18:53:45 1996