In-Reply-To: <960321021856_71363.2047_DHB79-7@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



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


On 20 Mar 1996, Gary Schepp wrote:

> Rex
> 
> What benefits do single women in poverty without children receive?

This depends on several things.  If the woman is somewhat attractive, 
relatively sane, and can at least pretend to be seductive, she can 
survive on her "looks".  Our "sex is taboo" society encourages poorly 
educated, under disciplined, lazy, selfish women to earn money as models, 
strippers, b-girls, prostitutes, and wives.

Notice, I do not include those who have worked hard, educated themselves, 
trained themselves to be highly effective as doctors, lawyers, engineers, 
sales reps, and service workers.  I don't even include the women who have 
actually TRAINED to become outstanding wives and mothers (several 
religeous orgainizations offer such training, including Christian, 
Bhuddist, Hindu, Jewish, and Moslim/Muslim organizations).

We do however have a class of women whose life depends on the "party".  
They learn to look, act, dress, and smell seductive, often when they are 
still in their early teens.  Eventually, they are either seduced by a 
selfish man, or simply raped.  They then use their "party-girl" skills to 
vent their hatred on men, as professional "party-girls".  They can look 
like every man's fantasy, but at the core is a fundamental fraud.  Often, 
a woman will marry a man she hates, because it will be easier to divorce 
him when the time comes, usually when the youngest is just about to start 
school.

Some women don't even have the looks to be a good party girl.  They think 
they can stake their claim based on their ability to vacuum a rug, scrub 
a toilet, or wash a baby.  In New York City, the best maids get about 
$15/hour.  It's a bargain compared to the $1000/month for work as a 
"part-time maid and nanny".  All she has to do is get out before the 
youngest starts first grade and no one will catch wise.

The really incompetent, abusive, and repulsive, end up in 
psychiatric hospitals and wards, collecting disability in exchange for 
taking a few mind-numbing drugs.  They end up in 1/2 way houses looking 
for men who will give them cigarrettes for a blow-job.  They are like the 
succubi of mythology.  One never knows when they might decide to kill you 
and take everything.  No one suspects the "street urchins", these junior 
"bag ladies", who can suffocate an old man for his freshly cashed social 
security check.  Or the girl who ties the guy up and gives him a 
snoot-full of pure - with a stricnine chaser.

(I have helped some of these alchololic/addict women get back on track, 
their stories are incredible).  Eventually, they go to a party where the 
pusher gives the girl who won't "put out" and they guy who won't "pay up" 
a special 8-ball, on the house.  One dies, the other goes down for 
first-degree murder and dies of an accidental overdose within hours of 
getting out on bail.

Any man who was unfortunate enough to marry one of these whackos, knows 
what a dangerous trap it is.  At first, it seems like the wildest 
fantasies come true, then comes the lies and the drunks.  Then come the 
babies, and she blames you for ruining her life (she can't party any 
more).  Then, when the youngest is about to start school, she files for 
divorce. 

She can drink and drug while the kids go to school.  She can 
"party", while this kids play at the playground.  Men, especially drug 
pushers, are waiting for the kids to leave so that can start the party.  

Mom can earn some pin-money, and a week's worth of drugs, by going to a 
party while some fat pig of a woman watches your children and hers, and 5 
or 6 others, watch television on a friday night, while your ex-wife 
"entertains" some high rollers who have military pay and an appetite for 
drugs and horny women.

> Are women who can't identify their sex partners responsible enough to be
> parents?  Are they really unable to identify their sex partners?  Or is it they
> are too ashamed to identify all of the men they have had sexual relations?

I graduated from High School as one of 4 virgins.  One was cross-eyed and 
buck-toothed, the other weighed 300 lbs, and last was a religeous zealot 
who knew she would go to hell if she even looked at a man, let alone wore 
make-up, or went on a date.  My father just forbade me from taking a bath 
more than once/week (on saturday night - to be clean for church, of 
course).  I would doubt that any of us could have produced a "hymen".

In my high-school, every purse had a cirular "compact" of "ortho-novum" 
or other birth control pill.  If a girl got pregnant because she was 
taking antibiotics (thus neutralizing the effect of the pill and turning 
her into "fertile Myrtle"), $300 and an afternoon in Boulder took care of 
the problem.

I went to a Catholic Women's college (I was one of 25 men).  The girls 
there knew that they couldn't get pregnant until March of her boyfriend's 
senior year.  The only men on campus (other than the theater 
drama-queens) were Air Force Cadets.  Only about 20% of the starting 
freshmen actually graduated.  Most became June brides and September 
mothers.  The "Grand Prize" at LHC was an Jet-Jocky with a commission, a 
Corvette, and a GI loan, who wouldn't be sent to Nam.  The the girls who 
married "Class of '76 through '78" made out like bandits.

> Why should the state be in the business of helping women when they are not being
> responsible citizens?
We want them to be "respectable prostitutes".

> The state encourages women to be irresponsible when they
> know they can make a killing in child support.  Why?  Child support is not
> designed for the children.

Correction, it is designed for the lawyers, the tharapists, judges, and 
tax collectors.  Mom has to turn tricks to survive (even with your 
generous child support).  Dad has to live in a tar-shack and drive a 
junk-mobile.  The lawyers make MINIMUM $1000/split.  The Judges make 
MINIMUM $5000/case.  The Socal Workers and Marriage Councillers make 
MINIMUM $10,000/divorce, and the IRS man gets $50,000 MORE per divorce.

Divorce is the only game where NOBODY WINS.  The father loses, the mother 
loses, the children lose.  Even the married tax-payer loses because he 
has to pay the costs of the enforcement.

Of course, the entire legal system is rigged to make it as difficult as 
possible for NCP fathers to get remarried.  The mother can remarry almost 
any bum off the street.  As a matter of fact, someone who is available 
during school hours is the PRIME candidate (they can party and shop all 
day and still be home in time to meet the kids),  One the oldest turns 
12, even the stepdad/boyfriend is expendable.

> It is designed as mommy support or alimony.  What
> will happen once women realize that child support (and welfare) is not going to
> be a "Life of Reilly"?

I don't know any woman who lives "Life of Reilly" on any combination of 
child-support, welfare, or disability.  There are always a swarm of 
leeches waiting to take advantage of free rent, meals, and 
transportation, for a little sweet-talk, sex, and drugs.

> Wouldn't there be a third alternative besides marrying a new husband or marrying
> the father of the child? 

The ideal situation would be to make sure that the children grow up in a 
two parent family.

> I would suggest that the child's father be given custody.

It takes a full federal hearing to get a crack-baby away from her addict 
mother.  The state has to be prepared to prosecute for several felonies, 
and even then often has to plea bargain and include supervised visitation 
if the mother does not agree to sign the adoption papers.  She'd sell the 
baby for a Kilo of crack, but she won't GIVE the baby up, and there is 
not a thing the state can do about it.

What chance do you have of getting a majority of representatives in federal,
state, and municipal goverments, to publicly vote for taking a nursing child
away from it's natural mother who is neither dangerous nor abusive?

Most married men, unless they are the fathers of infants and 4-7 year old
children, are looking forward to the day when the kids are big enough to be
on their own so they can spend some time alone with their wives.  Our 
culture would have to reprogram 2-4 generations of men to make their
children their primary commitment.

We've engaged in the bold 100 year experiment and the culture dish has 
now spawned a lethal disease.  To recover, we would have to go back to 
marriages arranged by parents who had the best interests of their clans 
at stake.  We would have to return to the practice of betrothal/bonding 
at the age of 13-14 for women and 14-17 for men.  Men would have to 
complete "high school" by the time they were 15 so they could become 
apprentices - learning not only how to earn a living in a trade, but also 
how to raise children and how to teach their children how to raise 
children.  The young women would have to learn to raise children, serve 
the clans, and serve her husband (physically, spiritually, emotionally, 
and sexually).  The young man would have to be trained to serve his wives 
(physically, spiritually, emotionally, and sexually).

The last great attempt at such wholesale social re-engineering was the 
Mormon Church in Utah.  They finally capitulated to the Federal Authority 
on many issues in order to attain statehood.

> Wouldn't the fathers be more capable of caring for the child than the
> mother on welfare?

In an extended family, supported by multiple wives or sisters-in-law, he 
could do so.  The man was charged with defending the tribe.  If his 
brother was killed in battle, he would assume all of the responsibilities 
for his brother's wife and children.  This immutible bond was the basis
for keeping children with the fathers.

In our nightmere "Nuclear Family", there are only two parents, one of 
whom is only present for a small percentage of the waking hours, the 
other is "on-call" 20 hours/day.  In the post-80's interpretation, the 
mother disappears and a "Licenced Day Care" is used to provide the 
after-school and early-morning environment.  Less fortunate children just 
become "Latch-Keys" coming home to an empty house, waiting for their 
parents to come home from work.  The only winner here is the Realtor and 
the Mortgage Broker.  Eventually, even the family dinner devolves into 
microwaved fast-food and drive-in take-out.

> Wouldn't that reduce the expenditures by the state on those
> mothers?

If fathers were given de-facto custody, they would have to hire, rent, or 
marry a mother who would resent the loss of her own children.  We would 
then live this resentful woman as the primary care-giver of another 
woman's children.  Any feelings you may have about raising another man's 
children come without the benefit of having that child inside your body 
for 9 months, nursing your breasts for 12 months, and totally dependent 
on you for 42 months.

> Of course there are fathers that are financially unable to do so.

There are many men who should NOT be raising children.  Men with prior 
convictions for DWI, DUI, Assault, Posession, Prostitution.  Men with a 
history of STDs, psychiatric disorders, or consistent patterns of 
violence evidenced by school records and public disturbance histories.

> But in general children are better off with their fathers than their mothers.

This depends on an array of easily determined factors available through 
public records.  Given a responsible productive nurturing father and an 
intoxicated, selfish, abusive woman, you are probably right.  Any 
resentments against the father will eventually be redirected to the 
children.

Each case must be decided on it's own merit.  Each side should know what 
is in their folder, but not what is in their partner's.  The judge should 
be required to look at both folders.  Would either parent be so eager to 
file the papers if there were no guarantees of custody or child-support?

> What would be the consequences of the child's mother and father marrying each
> other?

First of all, 2 can live almost as cheaply as one.  And for a very little 
bit more, 3 can live almost as cheaply as one.  A commitment between the 
parents, to each other forms an emotional structure similar to a 
catamaran.  Each partner independent of the other would be swamped 
instantly.  The two working in partnership, interdependent, not only 
gives more stability, but also enables the space between to be used where 
there was none before.

> Why didn't they want to marry each other?

If they didn't want to marry each other, why were they having sex in the 
first place?  If they decided that it was "casual sex" then why shouldn't 
all of her other "casual sex" partners be included in the paternity 
obligation.  A man who is unwilling to either have a vasectomy or sign an 
agreement to be held responsible for any child conceived within the next 
3 months, should be having sex with this woman in the first place.

Many cultures have variations on the "trial marriage", including the pagan
"handfasting", the Jewish and Islamic "betrothal", and the "Courtship" of the
European nobility.  Chaperones, Yentas, and Mentors were often held
responsible for the outcome of the relationship to the point of forfieting
their own lives or livelihood in the event of a divorce. 

If our priests were defrocked for the acts of the errant couple, if the 
licenses of LSWs and CACs were revoked or suspended when the therapy 
proved to be "inefective", we might see much stronger commitment to 
making the marriage succeed.  Instead we reward LSWs, MSWs, Laywers, 
Priests, and even the governemnt, for divorces.

> How would each feel about each other in the near future?

When the child is conceived and not aborted, someone is making a 20 year 
(minimum) commitment to that child and to the relationship that 
conceived it.  Unfortunately, we compartmentalize those commitments to the 
point where it becomes completely unworkable.  Mom will sleep in their 
house, dad will pay the bills, the government will give them a basic 
education, and there is no other commitment.

The true breakdown is that mother aborts her commitment to the father, 
the father aborts his commitment to the mother, the government aborts its 
commitment to the workable marriage, and the 3 principles are pitted 
against each other for "the best interests of the children.  The 
catamaran is split right down the middle and the child is left on a 
sinking boat with a sail that will cause a capsize in the slightest wind.

> Would there be incidents of domestic violence?

Domestic violence is a function of how people are taught to deal with 
their problems.  There are many forms of abuse and neglect.  Some men use 
their fists, others work until 3:00 AM, others drink or do drugs.  Some 
women use sex, drugs, food, or "shopping".  All of these result in 
avoiding the fundamental needs.  When a man's sexual needs are ignored or 
used to humiliate him, when a woman's security needs are invalidated, the 
responses are often misdirected.

> My experiences lead me to believe that women in lower income levels are more
> violent than the middle or upper class.

Men AND Women in the lower classes tend to be more violent.  In the south 
Bronx, a car lit up by a malatov cocktail or the sound of machine-gun 
fire is "normal".  The dogs bark and they bite, with the intention of 
killing trespassers who would kill them.

In suburbia, the cocain is cut on the mirror, snorted socially, while the 
children sleep at home under the watchful eye of a babysitter and her 
boyfriend.  The children are locked in their bedroom with their own 
little televisions while the babysitter and her boyfriend enjoy the 
benefits of a well-stocked liquor cabinet and a bed in the guest-room or 
the privacy of the couch in the safe isolation of suburbia.

The child in the south Bronx learns that he can stop his mom's boyfriend 
from beating in them by shooting him with a Colt-45 (or having one of the 
gang members do it).  The child in yuppie suburbia learns to enjoy the 
isolation of a desk and a video screen.  Doesn't really matter whether 
it's Network Swill, Cable Kink, Sega Games, or Internet News.

> What are the incidents of child abuse in step-father or boyfriend families?

It depends on who the woman chooses as a boyfriend or step-father.  It 
also depends on the step-father's commitment to being a father.  When a 
stud "shacks up" with a "party doll" and they start drinking and 
drugging, bad shit happends.

When a woman chooses to be responsible for everything, and then starts 
looking carefully for the man who wants the "whole family", she's out 
there checking out the little-league coaches and the men who "really miss 
their kids".

> The income level does have a bearing on how the relationship develops.  

This is true for first and second marriages.  Unfortunately, our current 
structure literally "dissolves" the marriage into mutual oblivion for 
both partners.  The mother ultimately has to make due with less than 1/2 
the after/tax income she had before (Dad's tax rate went up).  The goal 
should be to "resolve" the marriage.  To give both parents an opportunity 
to establish supportive environments for children.

If the woman is truly acting in the best interests of the children, she 
should have very little trouble finding committed NCP fathers.  If the 
state were truly committed to the best interests of ALL CHILDREN, they 
would encourage the father to remarry by offering reductions in 
child-support (even if it means they might have to pay the difference out 
of "welfare" for a short time).  If fathers were truly committed to being 
great fathers, they would get vasecotmies and seek out women with 
children,

> When there are children not of the family involved then the nonbiological 
> parents do not have that full committment to those children.

The biggest problems come in "mixed families".  These are families where 
one parent has step-children and natural children who are all natural 
children of the same parent.  You can have "Wicked Stepmothers", of both 
sexes.  When the incoming parent cannot have any other children, and 
cannot have their own children back (except for visitation), there is no 
choice but to commit to the step-children.  There is nothing to compare.

I wish it could be a simple clear-cut case of "Give them to him" or even 
"give them to her" and have the person who accepts that responsiblity 
prepared take on the full responsibility within a year or two.

Unfortunately, divorce IS a function of 1 or more selfish people.  To 
make matters worse, the parent most likely to be responsible is also the 
one most likely to accept the blame and consequences of the failed 
marriage.  Meanwhile, the selfish parent is obsessed with self, 
relaliation, anger, and self-pity.  If that parent gets the children, the 
children will become hostages to those ends.

> Gary

	Rex

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Mar 27 01:37:05 1996