In-Reply-To: <960221142933_328836438@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


On Wed, 21 Feb 1996 JoinTMI@aol.com wrote:

>  Rex Ballard wrote:
> 
> >> [joint legal custody] gives HER all the power.
> 
> >Theoretically, it places some restrictions on her power.
> 
> Theoretically, Hannibal wasn't supposed to make it over the Alps with
> elephants, either.
> 
> >The courts must make their rulings based on a preponderance of the 
> evidence.

> "Must" or "should"?

Actually, must.  A jury can do whatever it wants to do.  A judge is 
supposed to rule based only on admissible evidence.

> >The child could ONLY come out of her womb.  
> Someone would have to be there to record that.

That is exactly what the birth certificate is for.  The doctor who 
delivered the baby (or a similar witness, provide exact date, time, 
location, and womb information.  An optional field is available for 
providing the identity of the Father.

> In any case, no law follows
> from that "fact." Humans alone decide what follows. If we WANTED to, we could
> pass a law saying "A child belongs to the nearest, non-birthing adult."

I don't think the obstetrician would want that many babies.

Once upon a time, men were given pro-forma custody.  A woman who left 
with her child was entitled to nothing.  During the "Great Depression" 
foundling homes and orphanages were filled beyond capacity.  Ever known 
anyone who spent their lives in foster homes?  I'd rather watch Jerry 
(Ex's husband) make love to Leslie (Ex) once a week than to see my 
children thrown into the foster care system.

The best place for the children is in a home headed by two loving, 
committed parents.  My kids are lucky, they have three loving, committed 
parents.  I contribute in the way I can, and Leslie and Jerry contribute 
in the way they can.  On the other hand, I would like to see a more 
"substantial" commitment.  If he's supposed to be a better man than I, he 
should be paying at least 51% of the child-support (IE.  Cut mine in 
half).  At one point, in a moment of anger, my ex told me he was twice 
the man I was.  Then why isn't he paying 67%?

If I had been the one with a "wife-to-be" waiting in the wings and a 
wedding date within 2 weeks of the hearings, Judge Lawyer (yes, that was 
his real name) would have thrown the book at me.  But would he have given 
me "pro-forma custody"?

> >The only evidence which is relevent to the custody  issue is whether the
> mother is a clear and present danger to the children...

> Any man who sat back when THAT was proposed is, like the law, "a ass."
> Custody should go to "parents," not "women."

Custody doesn't go to just any randomly chosen woman.  Custody goes to 
the woman who carried the baby inside for 9 months, went through labor 
and/or surgery, and nursed the baby for 9 months.  The woman who drops 
her baby in the hospital dumpster doesn't get the right come back later.  

The minute the law gave "pro-forma" custody to the father, the first 
"test case" would be a man who served his wive within minutes after the 
birth and took the baby "home" while mom was still healing from the 
appesiotomy.  Do you think any politician wants to deal with the 
consequences of that kind of press?

> >If a woman is an alcoholic...[etc.]...,then the father can then make a case
> for being the best "Second Choice" parent.
> Again, any men who self-label themselves second-class will find many to
> indulge them.
You may be a first-class man, but that isn't the same as being entitled 
to being the "First Choice" of parent.

The bottom line is that custody should never be assigned "pro-forma".  The
mother should say she wants the kids, and state her case for herself and
against the other parent.  The father should say he wants the kids and state
his case against the mother.  Each should have access to all government
records, reports, and filings.  All of the DUIs, family disturbance calls,
and "therapists warnings", should be considered. 

This whole "proceeding" could be managed by filling out forms with the 
aid of a councellor.  Unsubtantiated claims backfire in court when they 
are put in writing.  It's easy to blurt out an unsubstantiated claim 
while being grilled by the opposing attourney, but such claims made under 
within a brief can be irrefutable purgery.  A paralegal or an LSW 
($60-70/hour) could help resolve that.

Once custody is decided, the cases each parent made FOR getting custody 
should be used to determine aggrevating and mitigating circumstances.  If 
mom has a man waiting in the wings, she shouldn't be entitled to the same 
child support she would get if her husband just "put her out on the 
street" in a town 2000 miles from her family.

If a man has a betrothed waiting in the wings who is willing to testify 
in court that she will be his partner in raising the kids, and the wife 
is unemployed and has made no plan other than to depend on 
"child-support", there is a good case for giving the father custody.

Custody shouldn't be a "done deal" either.  As circumstances change, the 
two parties should be able to adjust custody and visitation.

Visitation should be directly, rather than indirectly related to child 
support.  By saying "The more you visit, the more you pay", the father 
who really loves and cares for his kids will want to see them every week 
and pay 20% initially, with reductions over time as mom becomes more 
stable.  The father who was a victim of "entrapment" could walk away and 
pay 5% for the first 3-5 years.

With a structure like that, divorced parents would be encouraged to get 
as many parents involved as possible.  The kid might have his own room in 
both houses, and 2 parents in each house, along with a 
step-brother/sister or two.

The current structure does everything it can to encourage the custodial 
parent to keep the Non-custodial parent as far away as possible.  The 
child support structure give no incentive to the woman to get remarried, 
and gives no incentive to the father to support the mother emotionally.  
The current system polarizes the family - all for the purpose of 
extracting the maximum possible Taxes and "Paid-Through-CSE" 
child-support.

> >The feminists were able to turn us into slaves by bringing out their 
> > stories of women who were forced to take their children to Red Cross 
> > shelters because Daddy wanted a new "Trophy Wife".  
> No. They only "tried" that. The public, including many men, "bought" it
> because no men's groups rose in opposition. 

80 years ago, that was actually quite common.  Men would simply put the 
woman out on the street, sometimes with her children.  Of course, back 
then only 10% of the population got divorced.  Back then a woman would 
let her drunkard husband beat her up because she didn't have a choice.

The inner cities - Newark NJ, The South Bronx, Watts, and Highland-Park 
Michigan, are still like that.  The men pimp the women, get them 
pregnant, leech off the welfare, and then skip out.  Shelters for the 
homeless are full of women who didn't have a back-up for when the "old 
man" skipped.

> >It took almost 40 years to push the pendulum this far. 
> It was easy, there being little male resistance. 

It hasn't been compeletely unopposed.  Dick VanDyke made a movie called 
"Divorce American Style".  It was a "comedy" that tried to shake up men 
and alert them to what would happen to them when they got divorced.  Men 
fought for reduced alimony and limits on the duration.

Unfortunately, when Social Services was suddenly inundated with welfare 
claims because divorced moms weren't getting enough child support to make 
it through the "transition period", they stepped in "on behalf of the 
children".  The "Moral-Majority/Focus-on-the-Family/Christian Coalition" 
didn't see why men who were chaste until marriage, monogomous during 
marriage, and celebate when their wife died - should be forced to pay for 
the "Sins" of fathers who were obviously too irresponsible and selfish to 
keep their wives.  

The Christian "ideal" of unconditional love is a man who let himself be
whipped, beaten, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a cross in one of the
most painful forms of death ever devised, as an act of unconditional love for
the very people who were driving the nails and gambling for his clothes.  
Compared to that, a few insults from the wife, or blue-balls for a few 
days seems insignificant.

The Christian "solution" to divorce, for almost 1500 years, was to take 
the unfaithul wife and the adulterous husband and torture them in the 
public square until they confessed to having sex with satan himself.  
They even had to follow a script.  Then, she would be burned as a witch 
for her herasy.  About 15 million women died this way.

If a lord wanted a man's wife, he simply sent her husband to be a
foot-soldier in the "Crusades" or the "Hundred Years War".  Even during the
VietNam war, divorced dads who got behind in their child support were ordered
to become "bush bunnies" and go "hunting for charlie", on foot, through
mine-fields and punjii sticks. A few well timed shots and an entire platoon
would dive into the skewers.  About 200 million men have died that way.

> >The more women redefined their roles to become economically independent and
> take on a broader range of roles within the family and within society, the
> more men "Closed Ranks", becoming more and more militaristic in culture,
> dress, and values.

> Dream on. Men remained milquetoasts and fearful. They rarely if ever debated
> feminists, did not show up when anti-male bills were proposed, and failed to
> unite as an effective political force. It was, and is, every man for himself,
> and feminists take the hind-  and "most"-  most.

Unfortunately, their method of retaliation was to redefine masculinity in 
terms of violence, sex, and intoxication.  A man who could out-fight, 
out-drink, and out-fuck the other men was respected and revered.  Some 
men even considered a child concieved out of wedlock and a woman who "Let 
him off the hook" to be the "Ultimate Trophy".  Up until about 2 years 
ago, men used to BRAG about it.

Men substituted "fighting, fucking, and drinking" for courage, love, and 
responsibility.  We bought tickets to see Sylvester Stallone as "Rocky",
and "Rambo".  We payed to see Clint Eastwood as "Dirty Harry" and the 
"High Plains Drifter".  We even paid to see Burt Rynolds in "Smokie and 
the Bandit".  We even tore apart the bathroom stalls after seeing 
"Warriors" (noted for having the highest insurance claims of any 
first-run movie).

NOW we're upset with the media because they portay us a a bunch of "Jug 
Heads".  We PAID 100 Million/year to have them create these role models.

The only thing more insane is that women actually fell for it!  They 
actually got completely wired to be "turned on" by guys who will beat the 
living daylights out of anything that moves, drinks entire quarts - 
streight out of the bottle (aided with a little cocaine to keep from 
losing conciousness), and makes love to at LEAST 2 women per week.

The insane part is that they didn't realize that if violence was their 
primary means of solving problems, that he would be violent to his wife 
when she became a "problem".  They didn't realize that if he could have 
any woman he wanted, whenever he wanted, he would naturally have other 
women when he didn't want her anymore.  They had no idea that a man who 
had lots of cash earned by dealing drugs might not be able to hold a 
steady 9-5 job!

Guess what!  These insane women would fall "in love" with these insane 
men without ever questioning these values!  Even worse, they would have 
children, get divorced, fall "in love" again, and have more children.  
There are some women who have been "victimized" by 3 or 4 different men.

Even nuttier, these men, considered "prizes" by the insane women, would 
often go from one marriage to the next.  Often they wouldn't even wait 
until the ink was dry on the decree before concieving more children.  
Some of these guys have 6-8 children they NEVER SEE!

Here's the biggest insanity of all.  These fight/drink/fuck masters are 
only a small part of the male population.  They just happen to have a 
really bad impact on a large part of the female population.  They make 
O.J. Simpson look like Mother Theresa.  There aren't enough of them to go 
around so the women "take turns", often waiting in line for YEARS to get 
their shot at him.

When it comes time to pay the piper, does "Rambo" pay the bill?  He 
disappears (with some new fling) and some "Nice Shmuck" gets to literally 
pay the dues for this guy.  He may not even know that "Rambo" is the real 
father, or that "Rambo" had been there in the first place.  She may have 
met "Rambo" a year or two before meeting him, and be so bitter about it 
that she will take it out on "Mr Nice".

For those of you who have read my story...Leslie was raped by two 
"Rambos", at the same time, at the age of 16, as a virgin.  What a great 
way to loose your cherry - right?  At 14, an Air Force General tried to 
french kiss her and put his had up her dress.  Since he outranked her 
father, she was told "it didn't happen".

She didn't press charges in either case.
She didn't ask for restitution in either case.
She didn't retaliate in either case.

Then she got married.
Her first husband was very nice.  He was also homosexual and spent so 
much time in the arcades that he couldn't keep a job.  To divorce him,
she broke in at three o-clock in the morning, gently woke him up (backed 
up by her father and a 200 lb black former full-back), and asked him to 
sign what he thought was the paper to give im the exclusive lease.  
(Wish I'd known some of this BEFORE I married her).

Then she met me.  When we first met, she had only been divorced 3 days.  
On our first date, about 2 weeks later, she told me she was "Saving 
herslf" (after telling me about her previous husband and 2 lovers).

Eventually, I learned, just before the end of the marriage, that every 
time she saw me have an orgasm, she would have flashbacks for at least 5 
days.

10 years later, she met Jerry.  Jerry had been raped by 4 transvestites 
who promised to "kill you when you come".  After he came, they smothered 
him to unconciousness with a pillow.  He survived but was even more 
averse to sex than Leslie was.

Who were the REAL criminals here?

I would like to see:
	The General
	The "Rambos"
	The "TVs who raped Jerry"
Pay my child support for me.  I have lived with the consequences of their 
actions for 16 years.  I have literally paid for their crimes for 16 
years.

> >> If men didn't feel the orders were fair, what did they do about them?  
> >They obeyed the law.
> So did "Good Germans."

So did good Jews.  I don't know which is worse, resisting initially and 
being forced to see your own wife and children being tortured because you 
resisted, or having everything you have and are taken from you a little 
bit at a time until the day when you are relieved to be told that you are 
going to "The Showers" on the other side of the camp.

> Men could have opposed the bills before they became law. They chose not to.
> Why should they complain afterwards?

We fought alimony and they hit us with child support.  We would have been 
better off with the alimony (it's deductable and she loses it when she 
gets married).

> >...only the last 5 years have actually been forced to pay this type of
> "Extortion Money".

> It "only" takes a few minutes to launch a space shuttle, too. But it requires
> decades to make those minutes happen.

We're the ones who made heroes out of Rambo, Dirty Harry, and Freddy 
Kruger.  We're the ones who watched the detective shows with the 
obligatory fight, car-chase, and shooting.  We were the ones who decided 
that it was O.K. for children to watch their heroes commit Class 1 
felonies without consequences while treating marital issues as something 
"Obscene".  We're the ones who created censorship codes which normalized 
sexless love and loveless sex.

> >Personally, I wouln't even mind paying 20% of my after-tax income, or 
> paying child support that was completely tax-deductable. 
> Again, you see why mothers get the kids: men talk about money, not children.

I had a "Rock Solid Case".  There were over 35 reports filed with social 
services.  There were 3 trips to locked psychiatric wards.  There were 
medical records of my being treated for "Battered Spouse Syndrome".  
There was the husband to be that she met in the psych ward.  Later there 
were his 3 strokes, multiple sclorosis, and the potential to bring fraud 
charges.

I went to 4 different lawyers with all of this.  Each warned me up front 
that if I insisted on a custody battle, that both kids could end up in a 
foster home (at their ages and with their temperments they were PRIME 
adoption candidates for an older couple).  Leslie had squandered or 
embezzled almost all of my earnings.  I had been working 14-16 hours/day 
for 10 years to make ends meet.  She was a college drop-out and worked in 
retail for minimum wage.  On 5 different occaisions, I have been eligible 
to take custody automatically under the terms of the divorce.  Each time 
the event occurs, the lawyers tell me I will STILL have to pay the 
$70,000-100,000 for the custody fight.

Leslie has turned them over and renigged twice, has stated in writing that
she couldn't take care of the kids, and has been institutionalized in the 
state psychiatric hospital.

> >In Colorado, the legal expenses of the mother are apportioned between the
> mother and the father based on income.  
> Again, men went along.

As a married man who intended to stay married, it seemed fair.  I had 
known several women who didn't have a lawyer because they couldn't afford 
one.  I'd seen wealthy men manipulate ignorant women into going into 
poverty with the kids so that he could keep his family mansion.

That's why it is important to make sure that we don't alienate married 
men and never-married men who want to get married.

> > ...women plan their divorces well in advance. They unite... they network.
>  They share their experiences of going through the divorce. 
> 
> It works. Men are fools for acting otherwise.
> 
> >Every time a man flirts with another woman, forgets to say "I love you", 
> criticizes her for her appearance, or just avoids what he thinks might 
> become an unpleasant conversation, he plants the seeds of doubt in her 
> mind.  
> So? Did he marry an equal, or an idiot?

It has to do with what a woman values and considers important in a 
marriage.  Women need security very much and have less concern about sex 
(They are even averse to it).  Men want sex and are relatively secure 
about their ability to provide for themselves and their families.

> >Women often experience themselves as victims.  
> And men let them. 

Yep

> >The man may just forget to take out the trash - 
> Why is HE taking out the trash in the first place?
To her, it is a demonstration of his love for her.  She could do it, but 
if he does it, that means he loves her.  Read "Men are from Mars, Women 
are from Venus and "The Liberated Man" by Warren Farrel.

> >Because of our repression of female sexuality...
> How can half the population be "repressed"? Who do you think men have one
> night stands WITH? 

Boys start masturbating when they are about five.  They are encouraged to 
"be discreet".  Women are taught to be ashamed of their bodies.  If they 
don't look like Cindy Crawford their fat, ugly, undesirable, and unworthy 
of love.  They menstruate which they often consider "dirty".  They are 
often incested or molested at a very young age, being told it's a "game", 
only to be taught to be ashamed of the "Game" later.  The guilt is 
compounded by the fact that they often associate sex with love and want 
to play the "Game" again - which makes them feel guilty for wanting it.

> >...women aren't conditioned with a "do or die" relationship to earning
> income...
> Why not? It takes two to tango. If he is willing to pay for two, he WILL find
> women who will "let" him.

A man who lets a woman be his sole means of support is considered a 
"leech".  A women who lets a man be her sole means of support is a 
"housewife".  A boy who cooks and cleans and plays with dolls is a 
"sissy".  A girl who does these things is "practicing to be a mother".

If we REALLY want to shift the custody rulings, it will take 20-30 
years.  We will have to encourage our sons and our stepsons to 
play with dolls, clean the house, cook, and do EVERYTHING that girls do.

Until transvestites are commonplace, it will be hard to argue that you 
have trained for as long as a woman.  A woman trains from the time she's 
about 3 years old.

> >The man looses his sense of security the minute after he says "I do"...
> Why. Aren't they both equals?
> >...he kisses the bride only to get one of those "socially acceptable
> mouth-closed kisses".
> 
> Why isn't SHE told, "You may now kiss the groom"?
> 
> >She put the ring around his finger in the ceremony, but she put it through
> is nose spritually.
> 
> If men let themselves be "buffalo'd", they WILL find women to lead them
> around by-the-nose.
> 
> >He knows that he may have to support this child for 20-25 years, whether or
> not the mother stays around...
> 
> If he didn't like that bargain, he should/could have changed the law.
> 
> >Nearly every father who has been present at the birth of his first child
> describes it as the most powerful moment in his life.
> 
> So where are these men when 99% of commercials with babies show only moms?
> You don't think THAT shapes the culture?
> 
> >We decided that the children were better off with their mothers than in
> orphanages...
> 
> One hundred years ago, fathers got custody.
> 
> >Remember too that this was started at a time before we had blood tests for
> paternity. 
> 
> So many men were wrongly "shot-gunned" into marriage.
> 
> > At a time when a "girl in trouble" wasn't entitled to support for her
> "illegitimate" child.
> 
> And men had to make all the sexual moves.
> 
> >This was a time when men would seduce prostitutes or young women hoping for
> love and leave within a few nights...
> 
> And when women seduced men to get what they wanted, too.
> 
> >when men of the depression would be taken to work-camps for riding the rails
> or loitering in southern towns.
> 
> Whereas women weren't expected to work.  
> 
> >This was done at a time when soldiers when to war and died living their
> unmarried sweethearts with children and no father to support them.
> 
> Gee, how cruel to not let "Sweetums" get HER ass shot off!
> 
> >They wanted to get "Rosie the Riveter" off the factory floor so that "G.I. 
> Joe" could have a job when he came home.
> 
> Because HE had the job first, before he was taken away to protect men AND
> women!
> 
> >By the 1970's, the feminist Ideal as depicted by Helen Reddy was the 
> woman who could "Bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan".  Women 
> were becoming successful "SuperMoms". 
> 
> They never were. It was a myth from the start. Daycare became "mom" and
> microwave ovens "cooks."
> 
> >Of course the burning question was "Where's daddy in this family".
> 
> Why didn't he press for equal entree into traditional female turf?
> 
> >During this time, fathers were legislated out of the family.  
> 
> Wrong. Men let themselves be so treated. 
> 
> Women had their cake, and wanted to eat men's, too. Men could have said, "You
> want more time at work? Fine. Then I want more time at home." But feminist
> choices were based on men staying the same, save to accommodate women. 
> 
> >Meanwhile movies like "Mr Mom" dramatically illustrated that men were
> incompetent to be "Mothers". 
> 
> Again, movies starring men, watched by men.
> 
> >the Department of Health and Human Services "Had an Idea".  They 
> could just collect the money directly from the fathers and pay it 
> directly to the mothers.  
> 
> Impossible! There were thousands of men's groups in existence. Surely THEY
> fought the good fight for men, right? 
> 
> >We assume that even though we make him a stranger to his family - that a
> father will accept the obligation he has to HIS children...
> 
> In short, that dads will be doormats.
> 
> >A woman, on the other hand is not expected to reduce that burden over time.
>  If she works, gets remarried, or starts "hustling on the side", she is still
> entitled to "state mandated minimums" ... based on the assumption that she is
> incapable of earning anything more than minimum wage.
> 
> Yep. And if men don't like it, they had years and years to change the laws
> giving her all that "gravy."
> 
> >What will happen when this woman - dependent on child-support as her primary
> income - is left with two children who have grown up and no longer need child
> support? 
> 
> Feminists cut her in on HIS pension. And they'll make more anti-male,
> pro-female laws as needed. Why not-- who will oppose them?
> 
> >What will happen to the father who has been unable to save for his old-age
> because he was paying child-support?
> 
> Who cares? Men don't matter. Even men say so.
> 
> >We are building a future today.  We are always building a future. 
> 
> Exactly my point. Men can't bitch now, since they had decades to get involved
> and shape public policy. They chose not to.
> 
> >Who will be responsible when our sons impregnate young women as teens, 
> because he learned about sex in the locker room?  
> 
> Who will be responsible when our daughters seduce young boys to get "seed
> money," going to NOW meetings?
> 
> >Who will tell them that they must be responsible for the consequences of
> their actions? Why should they believe us?
> 
> They shouldn't. They are merely acting like men: complaining about fates they
> did nothing to stop.
> 
> -Robert
> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Thu Feb 22 05:01:24 1996
Newsgroups: alt.child-support