In-Reply-To: 
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 Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Fathers' Manifesto wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, tim balke forwarded:
> > From: msusmsi.mholdenr@eds.com
> > Date: Thu, 04 Apr 96 12:50:19 -0800
>
> > Does anyone have some statistics on the decline
> > in the awarding and even requesting of alimony?
> >
> > Also, does anyone have some statistics on the
> > increase in child support amounts, esp. the
> > amounts via the state's "income table"?
> >
> > Is there a statistically high correlation
> > between these 2 rates?
> >
> > It seems to me that as the feminist movement
> > strived (rightly so) to reduce the unlawful
> > discrimination of women while promoting the
> > idea that women can be independent, the desire
> > to request alimony was reduced to make it
> > appear that women didn't want to be financially
> > dependent upon their ex-husband.
>
> What you fail to note is that there is absolutely no statistical evidence
> whatsoever that "unlawful discrimination of women" ever existed.

Since about 1890, the "feminist movement" has been addressing a set of
cultural values which were designed to make a woman totally dependent on
her husband.  When my great-grandfather left my great-grandmother in
Missuri (sic) and ran of with the organist, my great-grandmother lost the
homestead because only men were allowed to own property.  Even though she
had two children, she had to forfiet the homestead (which was turned over
to the local bank).

By 1900, my great-grandmother was able to homestead with her sister in
Montana.  They still threatened to rider her out of town on a rail if she
showed up in a pair of pants, but at least she could own her land.

By 1910, this this woman was actually able to open her own business in the
middle of a Mining Camp (Cripple Creek Colorado).  She would get a days
pay from a miner for a bath, and days pay from the "saloon girls" for
laundering and ironing a dress.  Because she sent most of the excess back
to Boulder, she was able to become quite wealthy.  Her son learned some
valuable lessons in economics - an eventually became the architect of the
Savings and Loan system.

By 1921, woman were allowed to vote.  By 1944, many women were working in
the munitions plants as "Rosie the Riviter".  Without the efforts of these
women, it's likely that Hitler would have defeated England and would have
conquered most of Russia.  In order to stabilize the economy and prevent
the spectre of millions of jobless soldiers, the women were forced to
leave jobs they had held for as much as 5 years.  They were expected to
marry the returning servicemen and become "housewives".

By 1950, the Korean war erupted, and the military found that the easiest
group to recall were the men who had been relocated away from their
extended families.  The military and the GI bill had created affordable
housing and encouraged corporations to relocate employees.  As a result,
wives were often unable to establish a network of support similar to the
extended family.  Even those who stayed put were often abandonded by
brothers and sisters who married and moved to other parts of the country.

During the Korean war, a new method of forcing cooperation was developed
by the communist forces known as "brain washing".  It had been discovered
in hitler's death-camps that a woman, locked in a room with her own baby
for 7-10 days, would eventually kill it in a fit of insanity.  The most
fundamental human instinct could be completely derailed.  In addition,
the mother, having killed her child, would often go willingly to the gas
chamber.

Television, constrained by limited budgets, created a new model of the
american family.  In this family there was one mother, one father, 2-4
children, a neighbor kid, and a "character" neighbor who usually hated
kids.  Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Make Room for Daddy, and
the Ozzie and Harriet created a fictional, idealized family in which the
father seemed to be home more than he worked or slept and the mother would
spend the whole day cooking, cleaning, caring for children, and handling
the "crisis of the week", in a designer dress and high heels.

During this same period, REAL mothers were setting new records for
depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and psychosis.  Nearly every
mother's medicine chest had some form of major tranquilizer.  In addition,
the availability of over the counter Amphetimines as "Diet Pills" and a
general desire to keep looking like a "Pin-up Girl" would keep women on a
drug induced emotional roller-coster.  All this time, women were trying to
live up to the "tv mother" ideal, spending 24 hours/day alone with their
infant children, feeling guilty because they were wanting to hurt the
children.  Somehow, these women were expected to know, without the
coaching from a parent or other elder adult who had already raised
children, exactly how to raise children.  Many turned to "Dr Spock"
or other theoretical psycholigists for instructions on how to be the
"perfect mother".  Of course, the theories were being developed by a team
of trained professionals who were supporting each other and creating the
functional equivalent of an extended family, while advising the nuclear
family model.

By the 1960's women, driven insane by unrealistic expectations from
husbands, communities, and television, started rebelling, by divorcing
their husbands.  They would often become abusive, drinking while taking
tranquilizers or amphetimines, and eventually driving their husbands into
the arms of another woman.  Once they knew their husband was having an
affair, it would be a simple matter to get a lawyer who would hire a
detecive to get some incriminating photographs, and the husband cold be
shamed and blackmailed into granting a divorce with substantial alimony.

By the 1970s, the "Me Generation" had become obsessed with selfishness,
self examiniation, and self medication.  The prescription and over the
counter drugs of their mothers were replaced with Marajuana, LSD, Cocaine,
Crystal Meth, "Black Beauties", and "Reds".  Mothers would get so loaded
they would actually enjoy their children's crying.  Of course, if they
married another druggie, it wouldn't be long before she got tired of his
antics and wanted him out.  Eventually, marriage itself became too much of
a "hassle".  Women would just have their live-in boyfriends and if she got
pregnant, she'd nail the most "desireable" candidate for child support.

By the 1980's, Reaganomics, Yuppies, and "Trickle Down" had made marriage
and tax deductable children desirable again.  While the tail of the baby
boomers was turning 30-something and trying to "beat the clock", their
teens & 20's "slacker" neices and nephews were doing "Crack", bondage,
MTV, Madonna, and babysitting, all at the same time.  Meanwhile, the
divorce rate had exceeded 50% of the marriage rate.  The poor weren't even
bothering to get married, and the rich were using "Alimony" as a tax
dodge.  Some bright couples were even getting divorced and cohabitating so
that the man in the 75% bracket could pay "alimony" to his live-in
ex-wife.

By the late 1980's, tax "simplification" and new divorce laws had turned
the tables on divorced parents.  Ex-wives were getting less alimony and
more "child-support" based on the pretense that "the children have a right
to live in the manner in which they've grown accustomed".  It was a nice
"politically correct" way of doubling the taxable income on Non-custodial
parents.  Because the the "alimony/support" of "tax-dodge-divorces" were
factored into the child support equation, legislators decided that it
would be fair and reasonable to require the same amount in child support.

They forgot that when the NCP paid 30% in "alimony" that he would get back
20% in tax refunds.

In 1990, we elected a president who was the product of a single-parent
family and defeated a ticket which included a vice-president who denounced
single-parent families.  Dan Quail's solution to "Murphy Brown" was "get
married woman", Bill Clinton's solution was to "Nail the Dead-Beat-Dad",
in an electorate consisting primarily of unmarried, currently married,
single-mothers, and women, the "Dead-Beat-Dad" excluded them.  This
target became a great scape-goat for political points.  When Clinton
was hurting in the polls, a speech denouncing dead-beat-dads, promising
a shift of burdon from taxpayers to "Divorced Fathers", and promises to
end "Domestic violence against women and children" would boost him several
points in his popularity ratings.

Liberal Democrats who opposed Clinton's "get the deadbeat-dad" programs
were ousted in 1992 and replaced with "family oriented" republicans
hell-bent on punishing unfaithful husbands who avoided their paternal
responsibilities - focusing primarily on their financial obligations of
course.

Today, we have a political system which considers the non-custodial parent
the lowest form of life in the country.  Even an illegal immegrant has
more sympathy and support than the man who has lost his children due to a
divorce action instigated by a woman who wants the milk without having to
buy the cow, or even feed it.

> You might *believe* there was, but you have not and cannot provide such
> statistical evidence.

The fundamental root of discrimination was a function of values, goals,
and cultural conditioning.  The feminist movement was primarily focused
on alterning the cultural values that prevented women from participating
in the corporate workplace.

Unfortunately the current feminism is actually defeating it's own goals
and aims.  By creating an incentive for women to get married, get
pregnant, and then become single parents receiving child-support from
estranged fathers, it actually encourages women to pursue "the fairy tale
prince charming" knowing that "he'll do" can be ejected and still be used
as a money machine.

Feminists claim that protecting mothers from abusive men by creating
structures which force the man to pay child-support and circumvent the
constitution will empower women.  The reality is that women, especially
young women, see the "child-support mom" as a new ideal.  It isn't until
she has grown up and left the home that she discovers that Mom has no
skills, no pension, not even social security payments, to support her
once the children have left.  Instead of empowering women, the "get the
dead-beat-dad" mentality is actually being used to further disempower
women.  This approach actually increases the dependency of women on a
governmental beaurocracy (DHHS) which collects child-support from the
NCP and retains up to 30%.  In effect "the emperor has no clothes".

> On the other hand, systemic discrimination against men is well documented
> statistically, empirically, and anecdotally.



> > Another significant factor is that the receiver
> > of alimony is taxed on it and the giver of it gets
> > a deduction for it. Contrary to this, the receiver
> > of child support doesn't pay taxes on it and the
> > giver of it does not get a deduction for it.
> >
> > In this regard, it seems to me that the states'
> > child support "income table" amounts increased
> > (as well as the extra awards of "child care" and
> > "education" amounts included in the child support
> > orders) as the alimony awards decreased.
> >
> > The result being that the women seem to be more
> > independent (without alimony) yet their child
> > support awards increased to makeup the difference,
> > esp. when you adjust for the tax considerations. For
> > example, if a woman were to receive alimony of $400/mo.
> > and was in a 25% tax bracket (therefore $300 after taxes),
> > the state could just increase (over time) the child support
> > amounts so the woman would be awarded an extra $300.mo.
> > instead of the alimony!
> >
> > Another factor is that alimony would be stopped if the
> > woman got married again but child support can last much
> > longer. Some women cash-in on this by getting multiple
> > child support payments by multiple ex-husbands. This
> > "private welfare" system is much more profitable than
> > the public welfare system and the women still seem to
> > be independent. What a scam!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark O. Holdenried
> > msusmsi.mholdenr@eds.com
> >
> > Member of NCFC - St. Louis branch
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded Message Ends Here -----
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Timothy W. Balke, M.A.
> > Family Social Science
> > 290 McNeal Hall
> > 1985 Buford Avenue
> > St. Paul, MN  55108
> > voice:  (612) 625-7243
> > fax:  (612) 626-1210
> > e-mail:  tbalke@che2.che.umn.edu
> >
>


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Sat Apr  6 17:28:35 1996