Child support as USA politics

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:34 pm

First topic message reminder :

I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link HERE.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

by dimsum Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:09 am

Sounds good Jst and then people could stop harping about gay marriages. If people want a religious ceremony too that is up to them. But you would be married already legally the other would be for you and your church. End of problems.. Very Happy

by sickchip Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:19 am

LOL.....do western capitilists care about something as insignificant as burger flippers?

by jstnay Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:46 am

Sounds good Jst and then people could stop harping about gay marriages. If people want a religious ceremony too that is up to them. But you would be married already legally the other would be for you and your church. End of problems..

My Sister is Lutheran, she moved to a new area to get married and settle down with her soon to be husband. The minister refused to marry them because she had not joined his flock, even though she had just moved there. They had a civil ceremony and never had a religious ceremony. In fact they had a confidential marriage, no one can see their marriage lic. unless they show it to them. It is much easier.
Years ago in California ANYONE even same sex could get a confidential marriage. There are some of us who wonder if they are still married or some divorced and if so how they did that one.
A minister can refuse to marry anyone for any reason they choose.

by jstnay Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:54 am

We would have lost WW11 if not for the women working in the factories. Does anyone like the thought of living under Hitler or Stalin? I do not !!!

My Sister after her husband deserted her went to work on an assembly line, they paid so little she had to live in a very unsafe neighborhood she slept with a loaded Shotgun by her bed.
They had a lay off and she went to work on the assembly line at another factory, she ended up in Management due to her hard work and as the family likes to call her a Drill Sgt. she made them tow the line and the all liked her. She worked at the second one for 35 yrs.

by Shirina Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:21 am

It is true that both the World Wars damaged our society in very many ways, but the World Wars were actions of our Government as was the putting of Women to work in factories.

WWII was the action of the Japanese and Nazi governments. Of course, we could have done nothing, but if we had, all of us would have been hauled before a kangaroo court and executed for the posts we've made here.

I see it as extremely self-centered selfishness for women to claim that they needed "liberating" from their husbands

I can only assume you do not value freedom, independence, and self-reliance? Women were treated like children, and they had to beg for an allowance like some 10 year-old who wants a new toy. Do you know how humiliating that is? And to know that your future is already set in stone - get married, have kids, and stay in the kitchen - makes for an abysmal outlook unless you're June Cleaver. If a woman was unfortunate enough to be born ugly or if she decided not to marry, she had to live at home, again like a child, and then with a male sibling or cousin when the parents die, and the female was passed around the family like the property her parents once owned. If you were unmarried and middle-aged, you wore the pejorative label "spinster."

I think it is extreme "self-centered selfishness" for men to keep women like pets, and for men to continue wanting it that way. Women are intelligent, sentient beings - not Rosey the Robot who doesn't mind dusting the end tables and cooking the pot roast every day for 40+ years. I, for one, am perfectly content being single, earning my own pay, and supporting myself without having to ask permission. I think it is very telling in our society that former slaves - people who were fundamentally despised by many at the time - were granted the right to vote in 1870. Women didn't get the vote for another half a century - in 1920! It just goes to show you how women were viewed - stupid, vapid, vacuous know-nothings.

Society was already damaged long before WWII by this need to subjugate women across all cultures and religions. It was a patriarchal system run amok, and I am so very glad that has changed.

by jstnay Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:35 am

Thank You Shirina, that was probably the best post I've seen on this board.

by dimsum Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:25 am

Shirina well said. You wrote what I was thinking but did it in a way that made me smile.

by Guest Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:35 am

JP Cusick wrote:
I see it as extremely self-centered selfishness for women to claim that they needed "liberating" from their husbands…

Words can mislead. For instance, “husband”, as used today, means someone who participated in a procedure, whereas the root English word refers to a “house band”, the band around the home, or house, protecting everyone of the house, ready to sacrifice his life for all of the house, starting with that precious woman and extending to their precious children.

Here’s what Paul, an apostle of Jesus the Christ, said…

“Husbands (men), love (agapo) your own wives (women) as Christ loved the ecclesia (those who voluntarily follow Jesus)…”

Last time I checked, Jesus gave his life for the ecclesia, his friends: “Greater love has no one than this, that a man give his life for his friends.” A husband, i.e., a house band, will give hi life for his family. No woman who is loved by a house band need ever run from him in fear; rather, when she fears, she runs to him, confident that in his protection, anyone seeking to do her harm better pack a lunch and make sure his health and life insurance premiums are paid up.

by JP Cusick Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:32 pm

Shirina wrote:

WWII was the action of the Japanese and Nazi governments. Of course, we could have done nothing, but if we had, all of us would have been hauled before a kangaroo court and executed for the posts we've made here.

It was other governments against our group of allied governments fighting against each other.

And the Women of all those other Countries were put into working to serve their own war-cause as was done in our USA.

To view that as "Women's Liberation" is far from accurate when it was really Gov exploitation of the female population in order to use their labor to prosecute the wars.

Shirina wrote:

I can only assume you do not value freedom, independence, and self-reliance? Women were treated like children, and they had to beg for an allowance like some 10 year-old who wants a new toy. Do you know how humiliating that is? And to know that your future is already set in stone - get married, have kids, and stay in the kitchen - makes for an abysmal outlook unless you're June Cleaver. If a woman was unfortunate enough to be born ugly or if she decided not to marry, she had to live at home, again like a child, and then with a male sibling or cousin when the parents die, and the female was passed around the family like the property her parents once owned. If you were unmarried and middle-aged, you wore the pejorative label "spinster."

I think it is extreme "self-centered selfishness" for men to keep women like pets, and for men to continue wanting it that way. Women are intelligent, sentient beings - not Rosey the Robot who doesn't mind dusting the end tables and cooking the pot roast every day for 40+ years. I, for one, am perfectly content being single, earning my own pay, and supporting myself without having to ask permission. I think it is very telling in our society that former slaves - people who were fundamentally despised by many at the time - were granted the right to vote in 1870. Women didn't get the vote for another half a century - in 1920! It just goes to show you how women were viewed - stupid, vapid, vacuous know-nothings.

Society was already damaged long before WWII by this need to subjugate women across all cultures and religions. It was a patriarchal system run amok, and I am so very glad that has changed.

I realize those who cheer on such Women's Liberation say such things, but under historical research the evidence does not declare such disparities.

There are many famous Women from the Victorian age which declare with certainty of how those were the very best of times to be a female, including Queen Victoria herself and Helen Keller who notoriously challenged the plight of down trodden people said how being a Women at the turn of the 20thy Century was the best of times to be a female.

The demand to vote was the only stand-out issue, which really said nothing about the physical condition of Women.

Here too is a source link for some accurate accounting = The Flipside of Feminism.

In fact it appears that the call for "Liberation" during the World Wars was orchestrated by the Governments in order to persuade the Women to give up their privileges and go to work for the other governmental purposes as in winning the wars.

The truth is that Women have never ever been subjugated by the Men in any society throughout the entire history of humanity - never.

It surely is correct that some Men have wanted to and have tried to subjugate their females, and none has done so more than getting the Women to serve the demands of 20th century war.

by Shirina Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:43 pm

but under historical research the evidence does not declare such disparities.

Yes ... they do. The laws and practices are right there in the primary documentation.

and Helen Keller who notoriously challenged the plight of down trodden people said how being a Women at the turn of the 20thy Century was the best of times to be a female.

Best time to be female as compared to when? The late 1200's when hundreds of thousands of women were burned at the stake in Germany alone? If that's the case then, yes, I would agree. Now, if you were the Queen of England, I would imagine just about any time was great to be female - well, except if you were married to Henry VIII - especially if you didn't mind your only real purpose on the planet being to provide the king with a male heir. Of course there are always a few notable exceptions like Eleanor of Aquitaine, whose husband actually did fall in love with her, but the bottom line is: Neither Queen Victoria or Helen Keller lived the life of a "typical" woman of their times. Oh, and just wearing the damned corsets of the Victorian era is enough to convince me how wrong you are. Women actually had to wear a tiny vial of smelling salts around their necks because of how often the corsets cut off blood supply to the brain causing many feinting episodes. That by itself gives a little clue as to whether or not that era really was the "best of times."

Speaking of fashion, I find it a big "hoot and holler" how sexually repressed the Victorians were. Did you know that the Victorians thought the word "leg" was profane and that long, floor-length table-cloths became stylish to conceal the legs of the table? This is because table legs reminded these horny but repressed Victorians of female legs! So women had to wear voluminous amounts of cloth from the waste down to keep the men from having to be reminded of sex. I mean, seriously, it's always the women who have to make the sacrifices to keep their menfolk happy. In fact, women were nigh-on prohibited from wearing pants before WWII; pants in those days were considered "too revealing." Thus I always get a bit of a chuckle when I see old film footage of women digging, building, and doing hard manual labor during the defense of Stalingrad or even in and around London. They had to do this work wearing dresses LOL! As if that's practical. But even under those extreme circumstances, women couldn't wear pants. Have you ever worn a prom dress, Mr. Cusick? Even modern day formal attire is damned uncomfortable; corsets that cut off your blood circulation and enough skirts to make the simple act of sitting in a chair an art form does NOT sound like "the best of times." And that's just the fashion! Never mind the real stuff!

by jstnay Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:58 pm

Here too is a source link for some accurate accounting = The Flipside of Feminism.

Phyllis Schlafly
You'll have to do better than that. She is not a womans friend and she prefers that women are repressed. No thanks

by jstnay Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:00 pm

We will never know the former Mrs. Cusick's side of this story, actually we may never know the whole side of Mr. Cusick's story. There are two sides to every story.

by JP Cusick Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:23 pm

Shirina wrote:

Yes ... they do. The laws and practices are right there in the primary documentation.

Best time to be female as compared to when? The late 1200's when hundreds of thousands of women were burned at the stake in Germany alone? If that's the case then, yes, I would agree. Now, if you were the Queen of England, I would imagine just about any time was great to be female - well, except if you were married to Henry VIII - especially if you didn't mind your only real purpose on the planet being to provide the king with a male heir. Of course there are always a few notable exceptions like Eleanor of Aquitaine, whose husband actually did fall in love with her, but the bottom line is: Neither Queen Victoria or Helen Keller lived the life of a "typical" woman of their times. Oh, and just wearing the damned corsets of the Victorian era is enough to convince me how wrong you are. Women actually had to wear a tiny vial of smelling salts around their necks because of how often the corsets cut off blood supply to the brain causing many feinting episodes. That by itself gives a little clue as to whether or not that era really was the "best of times."

Speaking of fashion, I find it a big "hoot and holler" how sexually repressed the Victorians were. Did you know that the Victorians thought the word "leg" was profane and that long, floor-length table-cloths became stylish to conceal the legs of the table? This is because table legs reminded these horny but repressed Victorians of female legs! So women had to wear voluminous amounts of cloth from the waste down to keep the men from having to be reminded of sex. I mean, seriously, it's always the women who have to make the sacrifices to keep their menfolk happy. In fact, women were nigh-on prohibited from wearing pants before WWII; pants in those days were considered "too revealing." Thus I always get a bit of a chuckle when I see old film footage of women digging, building, and doing hard manual labor during the defense of Stalingrad or even in and around London. They had to do this work wearing dresses LOL! As if that's practical. But even under those extreme circumstances, women couldn't wear pants. Have you ever worn a prom dress, Mr. Cusick? Even modern day formal attire is damned uncomfortable; corsets that cut off your blood circulation and enough skirts to make the simple act of sitting in a chair an art form does NOT sound like "the best of times." And that's just the fashion! Never mind the real stuff!

I realize that I am beating against some iron-wall-ideas, but the reality of our human past is still ongoing today, which is that Women are the cause of their own conditions and NOT their Men.

Victorian Women were excessively proud of their elaborate clothing, and if any Woman secretly carried "smelling salt" then that was because the Ladies wanted their tight corsets more than they wanted otherwise.

The Men did not order the Women to wear the long dresses as the Women did that of their own accord, and Women put the table cloths to hide the table legs so Men would not see them. Today Women pay big money for their favorite prom dresses and it is NOT some Man ordering the Ladies to do so.

The six wives of Henry VIII were all happy to be made the next Queen over top of the previous wife.

We can see on the Titanic movie where "Rose" (Kate Winslet) looked over and saw the young girl getting her Victorian instruction from her Mom just as Rose herself had been raised, because Mommy teaches it.

Still today in society it is the Women who demand things like the fancy dresses and wearing make-up and high heels which Men do not approve of. There are many Men today who come out publicly telling Women NOT to wear the make-up but Women teach it to their young daughters as if it is a fact of their femininity which it is NOT. And high heels actually hurt the Women's feet and no Man is demanding that Women wear such things.

We hear about Muslim Countries too, but it is the females who demand that every Woman wears a covering and that is why the covering is enforced because the Women demand it. Some Muslim Men will say it too but the Men are only preaching what their Muslim mothers have taught them, and it would be like some American Man claiming that we demand our Women to wear make-up and high heels which is NOT true since Men can not stop the Women from doing such things. In old China and Japan the Women viewed small feet as prettier and then outsiders blame the Men for what the Women have done.

And to return to this thread subject - it is again the Women who do not want to be married and get the divorce and liberate their children away from their fathers and Women who demand cash payments as Child Support to pay for their own actions, and then blame the entire mess on the deadbeat Dads who really have no control over the mess created by female demands.

All throughout the entire history of humanity the females govern themselves, and the Men have never controlled the Women.

by Shirina Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:57 pm

The truth is that Women have never ever been subjugated by the Men in any society throughout the entire history of humanity - never.

I don't think I have ever read a more wrong statement on a message board. Ever. In my entire life. Anywhere. By anyone. I think making the statement "The world is flat" contains more elements of truth than the words you just typed. In fact, it is SO wrong that I decided to write a completely separate post on the subject in order to emphasize just how wrong it actually is.

First, let me address the book link. I have read the overview, and I'll simply say this: As a historian, I come across many authors who make the earth-shattering claim that everything we know about history is wrong. The two authors of this book are making the same claims by saying:

"What if everything you’ve been told about women in America is wrong? What if what your college professors taught you – along with television, movies, books, magazine articles, and even news reports – have all been lies or distortions?"

It's a book-selling technique. "Just buy my book (all major credit cards accepted) and you will have information that will enlighten you beyond measure! Only a few people know these secrets!" They are called "historical revisionists," people who are doing their best to rewrite history in their own image. They are adept at taking historical facts and misinterpreting them into saying something that suits their own extreme bias an agenda. I have had to "gently" correct many people for having their facts right, but interpreting the facts in a very inaccurate way. What the facts mean, as opposed to what they say, are two very different things. This is why people can easily be taken in by revisionism because it seems like truth; this is done by seamlessly interjecting opinions into the factual narrative so the reader can't distinguish between the two. Here's an example of how it works:

"The Pyramid of Giza is so accurately aligned to the north-south axis that the ancient aliens who built it had to use sophisticated technology unavailable to Bronze Age Egyptians." Whoa, wait ... what? How easy that can slip past the casual reader - and I used a very obvious example since inserting ancient aliens into any discussion should rock one back on his or her heels.

But most importantly of all, when analyzing any scholarly work, one has to look at the bias. As far as this book is concerned, here's a hint:

"But what if conservative women are in the best position to empower American women?" LOL! Talk about a hint that ranks high on the subtlety scale, along with atomic explosions, runway trains, and stampeding herds of elephants! You don't suppose conservatism has an agenda to push, do you?

But let's get back to your statement - a statement that is so wrong that I am going to repeat it:

The truth is that Women have never ever been subjugated by the Men in any society throughout the entire history of humanity - never.

So ... do you think that the laws in Saudi Arabia are fair and women are happy? Do you believe that women are not being subjugated by Men? Bear in mind that it is quite possible for an entire society to suffer the effects of Stockholm Syndrome, and in a nation where "speaking out" can be a capital crime. Do you believe that involuntary female genital mutilation is fair for women? Do you believe that foot-hobbling practiced in Oriental cultures is also non-subjugating in nature? I would provide loads of links, but since you have already dismissed mainstream history and hinge everything upon a pair of anti-feminist authors, you would dismiss all the proof as erroneous anyway.

But let's look at what you can't dismiss - actual law. Many of them are comical to the modern (and liberated) eye, but they once existed - and some still do!

In Deniston, Texas and Bristol, Tennessee, a woman adjusting her stockings in public could receive 12 months in the state pen.

Michigan state law says that women must get their husband's permission to have their hair done because, legally, a wife's hair belongs to her husband.

In Owensboro, Kentucky, it is illegal for a woman to buy a hat unless her husband tries it on first.

In Tremonton, Utah, it is illegal to have sex in an ambulance - but if caught, only the female will be charged with a sexual misdemeanor, and her name will be published in the local newspaper.

Vermont state law says it is illegal for a woman to wear false teeth without her husband's written permission.

In Tucson, Arizona, it is illegal for women to wear pants.

In Cleveland, Ohio, it is illegal for women to wear patent-leather shoes because the shiny finish may give men up-skirt views of female "private bits."

In Memphis, Tennessee, it is illegal for a woman to drive a car unless a man runs ahead of her waving a red flag to warn other motorists and pedestrians.

In Missouri, four women or more are not allowed to rent an apartment together. The same law exists in many states and is still enforced. In college, our sorority could not have a chapter house because of an old Pennsylvania law that states four or more women living together in the same house, by default, constitutes a brothel. Men, of course, are not subjected to this limitation. Believe me, it made finding affordable off-campus housing a real chore. Guys often rented apartments four at a time - and sometimes more - to get out of the dorms. Because of this, co-ed living arrangements were not at all uncommon.

Illinois state law demands that bachelors be addressed as "master" instead of "mister" when spoken to by a female. (The prefix "master" is usually attributed to boys, not adult single men).

In Dyersburg, Tennessee, it is illegal for a woman to call up a man for a date.

In Oxford, Ohio, it is illegal for a woman to take off her clothes in front of a man's picture.

In Little Rock, Arkansas, a man is allowed to beat his wife, but only if the stick is no more than three inches wide ... and only once per month.

Now, the point here isn't whether or not the laws were ever enforced - I don't see how some of them even could be enforced - but it gives an open door into the mindset of a patriarchal society. Who made these ridiculous laws, and why?

But I think the bottom line is idiot-simple: The government may have used women for war, but the government did not force them to CHOOSE to not return to the traditional life. Nor did the government force them NOT to choose a traditional life. Getting a taste of freedom during the war was like leaving the door open for a dog - women bolted for it, and once out of the cage, many had no desire to return. "Conservative" women can preach all they wish to about much better life was for women while they were still in the cage, but a comfortable prisoner is still a prisoner. The old gender rules denied women the freedom to make choices suitable for her and instead were designed to force women into a life suitable for her husband. The great thing now is that women who want to be housewives can still do so. No one is telling them otherwise. But the old rules would railroad me, and every other independent woman, into a life of indentured servitude or social exile. The Declaration of Independence declares that we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Patriarchs of the Old Guard had best stay out of my way ... female pursuing her own happiness coming through!

by Shirina Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:59 pm

Victorian Women were excessively proud of their elaborate clothing, and if any Woman secretly carried "smelling salt" then that was because the Ladies wanted their tight corsets more than they wanted otherwise.

Proud? Of course they were proud. It was all they had that they could call their own! By the way, most fashion designers are male, not female. With a few notable exceptions, female fashion designers tend to focus on the simple and practical while the men focus on the very sophisticated but highly uncomfortable formal wear. In short, female fashion designers create clothing they want to wear. Male fashion designers create clothing men want them to wear.

The six wives of Henry VIII were all happy to be made the next Queen over top of the previous wife.

It is not uncommon for the trappings of power to override one's desire for self preservation.

We can see on the Titanic movie where "Rose" (Kate Winslet) looked over and saw the young girl getting her Victorian instruction from her Mom just as Rose herself had been raised, because Mommy teaches it.

Ooh, bad example, but thanks for the assist! I'm sure you also remember in Titanic when "Rose" tried to speak her mind but was shot down by the cigar-smoking aristocrats at the table. I believe someone even made the statement, accompanied by chuckles all around, "That's what happens when you let women talk politics!" And you can bet that no females were allowed to follow the men into the smoking room to join them in their political discussions. Oh, and also note how "Rose" was not allowed to pick who she would marry. That's another nasty bit about being female ... your marriage was about political convenience and familial alliances for the men. Your happiness had nothing to do with it. Hell, even her love of Picasso paintings were derided as if "Rose" was a know-nothing child.

Yes, mommy taught it, but who invented it? Again, it's a byproduct of a patriarchal society gone to extremes; Mommy taught daughter whatever the husband wanted to be taught, whatever a male-dominated society deemed necessary to be taught in order to keep the female out of non-domestic affairs. Mommy knew that if she didn't teach Daughter how to behave like a lady, both Mommy and Daughter would be in big trouble.

Still today in society it is the Women who demand things like the fancy dresses and wearing make-up and high heels which Men do not approve of.

LOL! Just LOL! The only "men" who do not approve of make-up and a nice dress are Pentacostals and southern Baptist ministers. Of course, I'm sure that a goodly number of men would be quite happy with just the high heels. Dress and make-up are optional!

There are many Men today who come out publicly telling Women NOT to wear the make-up but Women teach it to their young daughters as if it is a fact of their femininity which it is NOT.

Where? Which men? How many? I haven't heard about this new anti-make-up revolution. Then again, I'm neither a southern Baptist or a Pentacostal, so maybe that's the reason. I will agree that many fathers get antsy when their daughters start wearing make-up, but that's for two reasons: 1) because it is a sign of growing up which parents hate and try to postpone and 2) because men know what they find sexually attractive, and the last thing they want is for boys to start looking at their "baby" daughters in the same way that the fathers looks at adult women. The important point is the latter one, for it makes little sense to imply that men have no desire to look at pretty women!

And high heels actually hurt the Women's feet and no Man is demanding that Women wear such things.

You're damn straight they hurt! I hate the bloody things! Actually, high heels were once worn by both sexes (in different styles, of course) as a means of showing off one's elevated station. This is where the term "well-heeled" comes from. Modern fashion has a lot to do with competing with other women for the potential mate. It is as animalistic as anything that goes on in the wild. Men *love* high heels because they accentuate the legs, make women appear leaner and taller, and forces them into a posture that men find seductive. I will agree that men are not forcing women to wear high-heels, but few men are going to complain if they are worn.

We hear about Muslim Countries too, but it is the females who demand that every Woman wears a covering and that is why the covering is enforced because the Women demand it.

No it's not. The Saudi Arabian morality police, also called the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, are all men enforcing a male-dominated religious code. As with anything else, you stick a woman in a nijab and make her wear it long enough, she'll actually grow to like it. The bottom line, however, is: Does she have the choice not to wear it? If not, then why - and who decided? I think you'll find the usual "sausage fest" behind those decisions. Women can't even vote (or couldn't until just a few weeks ago), so suggesting women are making these policies against themselves makes absolutely no sense.

Some Muslim Men will say it too but the Men are only preaching what their Muslim mothers have taught them

And the Muslim mothers are only preaching what their male Imams are teaching them. Naturally any mother wishing to protect her daughter would teach her to follow the law in order to avoid the swift (and ubiquitous) flogging for immodesty.

In old China and Japan the Women viewed small feet as prettier and then outsiders blame the Men for what the Women have done.

Prettier to whom? There is the key question. I suppose when your entire life can be made or broken by being attractive to men, you'll do desperate things to make yourself pretty. In truth, no one really knows who started foot binding or why. The reason why men get the blame is because it became a status symbol - for the male, of course - in China. Having women in your concubine with bound feet showed that you could afford to keep these women without having to put them to work. Thus, for a very long time, it had little to do with beauty and more to do with making the male "look good" in the eyes of their peers.

it is again the Women who do not want to be married and get the divorce and liberate their children away from their fathers

So it's all the woman's fault, is it? Men never file for divorce or abandon their children. That is unheard of!

and Women who demand cash payments as Child Support to pay for their own actions

Ah yes, I forgot. Women have mastered the art of asexual reproduction. We get pregnant all by ourselves and then ask the father - who was out bowling at the time - to pay for the child's upkeep.

Mr. Cusick, I respect your position and your crusade. I even agree with it, at least in part. But I think you're taking things a bit too far. Just one woman's opinion - which I'm able to actually have now that the Olde Rules have changed. Twisted Evil

by JP Cusick Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:54 pm

Shirina wrote:

... ... ... ...

Mr. Cusick, I respect your position and your crusade. I even agree with it, at least in part. But I think you're taking things a bit too far. Just one woman's opinion - which I'm able to actually have now that the Olde Rules have changed.

It is that hard line stand given with your determined belief as done by so very many Women that no Man including myself can stand up against.

Women make demands and Men follow orders.

Some times it is referred to as a "Honey do list" as in the Woman says for her honey to do this and honey do that and do this do that, and the Men say "yes dear".

If Women ever really want equal rights then they are the ones who have to get down from the bull.

As such you win here, and I will return to my discussion of the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

by JP Cusick Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:57 pm

JP Cusick wrote:

As such you win here, and I will return to my discussion of the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

A real problem in the Child Support and Custody laws is that most of the Men / fathers do NOT fight back against the mother of their children.

Even myself am saying to fight back against the evil laws but not against the other parent.

Having parent against parent and Dads against Moms is the old government tactic of "divide-and-rule" which does far more harm then need to be.

For whatever reason Women go to the Courts as if they are sporting events, and the Women / Moms will throw out the family's dirty-laundry from their one sided perspective and view it as a victory, while the Men / fathers cringe and crumble under the display which Men / fathers find to be embarrassing and dishonorable.

Most Men will not fight back against the Women for any reason, and fathers will not fight against the mother of their children even when it includes their own ruin.

The evil Child Support and Custody laws play on this reality, and as such the families are destroyed, parents are trashed, children are alienated from their parents, and our social structure is severely compromised.

And I really do not blame this on the Women, and many mothers are being trashed by those evil laws, and many Men are learning new ways of getting the upper hand in Custody, and the evil system is becoming worse at every turn.

by Shirina Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:48 pm

Some times it is referred to as a "Honey do list" as in the Woman says for her honey to do this and honey do that and do this do that, and the Men say "yes dear".

Actually, Mr. Cusick, I'm an "equal opportunity" campaigner, if you will, and I'm not fond of hearing about "honey do" lists, either. I do think there's some truth to the speculation than men often marry women who remind them of their mothers, and some women act as if they are their husbands' mothers. I may be adamant about women not being denied freedom, yet at the same time, men will also find an ally in me on many issues, as well. The things you describe are things I would never do to my husband; I have known far too many men who are brow-beaten by their wives to the point where they are treated like children, too, complete with bed times and curfews. Many men lose their freedoms as well but in different ways.

There was a recent commercial you may have seen (commercials are horrible at reinforcing the "bossy female" syndrome). It involved a child making use of a particular computer's multi-media features to create a presentation on why the family should have a dog. When the child was successful, the husband approached his wife with a computer presentation on "Why I should play golf on Saturday." The wife just shook her head "no" and the husband slithered off with such a dejected look on his face that one would have thought his wife just cancelled Christmas. If women shouldn't have to ask for permission to do simple, basic things, neither should the husband. "I'm going golfing this morning. I'll see you later this afternoon," should be good enough. There is a plethora of commercials and television shows that portray men as good intentioned bunglers with the wife saving the day with a casual flick of the wrist. I do believe there is such a thing as reverse sexism - it isn't always women who end up the victims of it - so I know what you're saying. I'm not the type to hand out "honey do" lists or to boss people around. Not all women are like that.

by oftenwrong Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:30 pm

"The Lord helps those who help themselves"

If a woman acts subservient to her partner, that is because she chooses to do so. (If only for a quiet life). Each of us has the choice of being fiercely independent, and there are plenty of examples where that is the preferred alternative.

The downside of being a free agent is not much enjoying a "meal out" on your own, or visiting an Art Gallery without someone who actually cares about your opinion, or foreign travel when there's only the cat to look at your snaps when you get back. Whatever friends you have will possibly have different priorities in their lives.

Decisions, decisions!

by Guest Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:32 pm

Shirina wrote:
There was a recent commercial you may have seen (commercials are horrible at reinforcing the "bossy female" syndrome). It involved a child making use of a particular computer's multi-media features to create a presentation on why the family should have a dog. When the child was successful, the husband approached his wife with a computer presentation on "Why I should play golf on Saturday." The wife just shook her head "no" and the husband slithered off with such a dejected look on his face that one would have thought his wife just cancelled Christmas. If women shouldn't have to ask for permission to do simple, basic things, neither should the husband. "I'm going golfing this morning. I'll see you later this afternoon," should be good enough. There is a plethora of commercials and television shows that portray men as good intentioned bunglers with the wife saving the day with a casual flick of the wrist. I do believe there is such a thing as reverse sexism - it isn't always women who end up the victims of it - so I know what you're saying. I'm not the type to hand out "honey do" lists or to boss people around. Not all women are like that.

There is at least one sturdy out there (I’ve read one) that concludes that such crypto-genderism (I “hate the term “sexism”) has a debilitating effect on society.

Part of the problem is an age-old misinterpretation of a Biblical teaching, i.e., “Wives (women), submit yourselves to your own husbands…” Actually, the problem isn’t so much misinterpretation as interpretation in the first place. If those who’ve to use this text a pretext for lording it over their wives would take the time to find out what Paul actually is saying, in other words, if they took the time to do a little expositing instead of interpreting, they’d find out that “making a woman obey” ain’t got nothin’ to do with it.

The word translated as submit is hupotasso, exemplified by strong women whose strength strengthens those around and about them, starting with their husbands (if the knuckleheads have sense enough to listen), and extending out ward to encompass folks who will tell you if asked that they learned strength from that specific woman.

One on the world stage right now is Michelle Robinson Obama, who learned hupotasso from her mother, Mrs. Robinson (not Dustin Hoffman’s stalker). Two more are the current and immediate past USZ Secretaries of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who seems to have proven that, whatever backbone William Jefferson Clinton had, she lent it to him, and the magnificent Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who could rip you from one end to another with a smile on her face and leave you wondering “Wha’ happened?”

In America, ironically, Black women have been far less “infected” with the misinterpreted “submissive” disease, perhaps because survival precluded such foolishness. It used to “kill me”, in the sense that Everybody Loves Raymond kills me, to hear the debate about whether modern women should work outside of the home. Huh? When OI was growing up, every woman in my family worked, many as teachers, at least three as nurses, and all took care of business. Not a weeping willow among them.

It was not a surprise to me that the first woman I know about who seriously contended for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination was Shirley St. Hill Chisholm (click for more on her), a Black woman. When a bit more than half of humanity is disallowed from being all that they can be, society suffers, as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia suffer and will continue to suffer.

by JP Cusick Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:30 pm

Shirina wrote:

Actually, Mr. Cusick, I'm an "equal opportunity" campaigner, if you will, and I'm not fond of hearing about "honey do" lists, either. I do think there's some truth to the speculation than men often marry women who remind them of their mothers, and some women act as if they are their husbands' mothers. I may be adamant about women not being denied freedom, yet at the same time, men will also find an ally in me on many issues, as well. The things you describe are things I would never do to my husband; I have known far too many men who are brow-beaten by their wives to the point where they are treated like children, too, complete with bed times and curfews. Many men lose their freedoms as well but in different ways.

There was a recent commercial you may have seen (commercials are horrible at reinforcing the "bossy female" syndrome). It involved a child making use of a particular computer's multi-media features to create a presentation on why the family should have a dog. When the child was successful, the husband approached his wife with a computer presentation on "Why I should play golf on Saturday." The wife just shook her head "no" and the husband slithered off with such a dejected look on his face that one would have thought his wife just cancelled Christmas. If women shouldn't have to ask for permission to do simple, basic things, neither should the husband. "I'm going golfing this morning. I'll see you later this afternoon," should be good enough. There is a plethora of commercials and television shows that portray men as good intentioned bunglers with the wife saving the day with a casual flick of the wrist. I do believe there is such a thing as reverse sexism - it isn't always women who end up the victims of it - so I know what you're saying. I'm not the type to hand out "honey do" lists or to boss people around. Not all women are like that.

I have told you this before and I say it again - that clearly you are far more enlightened then are most people being male or female.

A true story that happened to me less than a year ago is that I met a Man who works in my local small town Child Support enforcement office as a CSE agent, and he recognized me (as I am known around here) but I did not know him, and he started the conversation by introducing himself and he told me as some kind of rationalization that the system was not meant for people like me as it was meant for the real deadbeat parents and he said that I got a raw deal as if my case simply got mixed up where I did not belong.

He seemed to mean that as a type of compliment to me and we parted nicely but I did not take his words as a compliment and I still resent being excluded as if my own case was some mistake in the system when it certainly was not.

Some how we people need to make our words to match our actions, and our actions to match our words, then there will be enlightenment flowing all around.

by oftenwrong Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:40 pm

A familiar situation to those who don't quite fit the prototype.

"Oh, it's not meant to include people like YOU!"

by **Ivan** Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:43 pm

Please note. If any member wishes to communicate with another member, please use the PM facility. If any member wishes to raise any issues with me or one of the Moderators, again, use the PM facility or an e-mail. This thread is for discussion of child support in the USA. Thank you.
Ivan

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:23 pm

Dialogue? Debate? Discussion?

What did I miss?

by Sponsored content

Child support as USA politics

Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Reply

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Response.

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Reply

Reply

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Response.

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics

Re: Child support as USA politics