Justify Your Existence: A challenge for the child support machine

by Featured Guest on November 18, 2012

By Taank

The original argument used to justify the implementation of government-enforced child support policies is a simple one: the citizens comprising society at large should not be required to support (via welfare, paid for with taxes) the children of other citizens. In essence, the idea is that single mothers depending on welfare handouts to survive are a financial problem for the state. Therefore, the fathers in these cases should be paying child support to reimburse the state for, or remove the need for, welfare expenditures. This idea is what got the whole process started.

This, of course, has morphed into the massive governmental child support enforcement machine we know and love today, with all its lovely denials of due process and erosion of civil rights. In all the righteous furor surrounding the ever more rabid hunt for deadbeat dads, there’s a calm and direct question that seems to be repeatedly overlooked. That question: Is it worth it?

Plain, simple, direct: has government-enforced child support achieved its goal? Ultimately, there are two scales that need to be compared to answer this question.

Scale 1: Add up the costs required for government enforcement of child support

-Salaries for state workers employed for child support enforcement

-Facilities costs for offices, utilities, IT assets, etc

-Administrative costs for running Family Courts at higher capacities to deal with child support cases

-Federal matching funds provided to states to incentivize aggressive pursuit of child support cases

-Welfare expenses paid in those cases where non-custodial income garnishment is insufficient to avoid welfare

-Costs to incarcerate noncustodial parents unable to pay, under ‘contempt of court’

-Miscellaneous expenses as discovered

Scale 2: Add up the costs required in the absence of child support

-Welfare costs for all child support cases that would require welfare

I ultimately have no idea what the result would be, having neither the time nor the expertise to perform this sort of investigative journalism on my own. As a taxpaying citizen, though, I’d be curious to know if the extravagant child support enforcement machine that we have built over the decades has actually saved me any money, or if I’ve avoided paying the bill for someone else’s children by paying an even larger bill to avoid it. Maybe some intrepid souls out there are brave enough to take up the challenge; or perhaps the state agencies involved will decide that it is in their best interest to show why they should continue to exist. Ultimately, the challenge is the same: justify your existence.

{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }

gilgamesh November 18, 2012 at 12:01

No one cares if children are being supported, they just want to fill the prisons up and punish men for failing to make their ungrateful wives haaaapy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
keyster November 18, 2012 at 12:11

…has government-enforced child support achieved its goal?

The goal was to reduce govt funded welfare entitlements by transferring state enforced support to the father. This was something both Rebublicans (lower taxes/anti-govt dependence) and Democrats (man hating feminists), could gleefully agree on.

What it managed to accomplish is that men are avoiding marriage like the bubonic plague, because they’ve seen what CS payments does to a man and they don’t want it to happen to them. One million divorces a year…it’s a big risk. Family Law and transferance of welfare to the father was addressing inner-city baby-daddies, but the noble suburban Dad felt the brunt too. OOPS!

This is what happens when Republicans and Democrats violently agree on something – – it becomes a cluster f*ck. Witness the Bush adminstration pushing housing so “everyone can realize the American dream of home ownership” (and the corporate construction and banking industry boom). While Barney Frank and Chris Dodd see women and minorities (their key voting demographic), rise to middle-class affluence.

It’s a perfect storm of government enacting social engineering policy, without realizing the unintended consequences. You think it’s bad now, just wait.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Thrasymachus November 18, 2012 at 13:13

The purpose of the system is not to provide for the well-being of children, but to provide for the well-being of system supporters through income and the enjoyment of the arbitrary exercise of power on its behalf.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 18, 2012 at 15:06

Cost of child support enforcement in florida

In Florida last year, taxpayers paid $4.5 million for the state to collect
$162,000 from deadbeat parents

Broken down, the state of Florida, using state and federal funds, paid about $4
for every $1 collected, according to Donna O’Neal, spokesperson for the Florida
Department of Revenue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Poiuyt November 18, 2012 at 15:07

The inadequate arithmetic used to calculate CS costs entirely misses the invisible attendant costs and consequences to the fabric of society. And these invisible attendant consequences and CS costs hugely outweigh every nickle and dime cost to society, calculated on a book-keeping only basis.

What about THESE costs:

1.
The proverbial victim-parasite female that bastardizes her children for profit off their father, ultimately finds them difficult to control or stabilize. So too do their teachers, employers and future partners.

2.
The proverbial victim-parasite female is never ever a victim in the first place. Not of the children’s father nor of any sexist society at large. On the contrary she is the empowered victimizer for profit of others in her vicinity. What she is encouraged to do by genderist liars backed by societies elite males, in depriving her kids of their father is an abomination purely for economic gain. An economically profitable abomination, the consequences of which are being borne out to everyone and the misused and abused kids.

3.
Fatherless children don’t grow into good natured, civilized, well mannered and disciplined adults, the same as children with fathers, least of all following the example of a woman instrumental in bastardizing them. For firstly, by the standard of such a woman’s own tyrannical behavior, towards her children and towards their father are the children themselves brutalized, socialized, traumatized and tyrannized. Secondly by mimicking a single mothers behavior as a sole parent are the children themselves imbibed in the coarse values of violence, treachery, disloyalty, narcissism and conceit.

4.
Societies’ elite males alongside female radicals, rely heavily on bestial single mothers for their own profit, power, importance, position and authority. They effectively say that they are themselves better friends of women and children than husbands and fathers. But this mandate is possible only after the fact of bestial single mothers and others relinquishing their authority and duty to think and to act as adults. Then in the future, bastardized children, much more so than fathered children will again serve great purpose for these elite males and female radicals, as further problematic subject matter over which they will profitably employ themselves as judges, lawyers, social workers, jailers, etc etc.

5.
So much more can be said in this respect. For example, a great proportion of criminals and jail inmates were at first made fatherless in their youth, thanks to the likes of bestial single mothers in collusion with the authorities. And only by ever increasing borrowing and indebtedness are these criminals managed and contained again by the corrupt authorities.

6.
A great proportion of teenaged pregnancies with attendant health, disease and sickness consequences occur in fatherless households thanks to the likes of bestial single mothers. Here again corrupt authorities borrow debt and then pay themselves handsomely steadily growing but pretending to manage this mess.

7.
A good deal of violence and cynicism in society is occurring due to the violent ejection and outlawing of fathers, thanks to heroic and feral single mothers in collusion with corrupt authorities. Yet as ever, fathers are a moderating influence, a natural policeman or deterrent to their children’s excesses whom would otherwise misbehave and grow up wild.

8.
Theft, robbery, arson, larceny etc are on the up, thanks to the likes, entitlements and actions of CS-gifted parasitic and bestial single mothers. If women are increasingly entitled to other peoples hard earned property or money for free on account of their gender, then so are thieves, robbers, arsonists and larcenists !

9.
Infant and young males are bastardized more so than females, leading them through to a lifetime of resultant consequences unique to fatherless males. That is to say, males because deprived of fathers more so than females are deprived of mothers for economic profits to mothers and professionals creates severe male borne reactions. Anomie and sociopathy for example. [The fatherles male evolves into a roaming and roving man-child IE. a rootless and rudderless sociopath]

10.
Infant and young males made fatherless are ill-treated more in the home, the school and wider society, leading them into greater antisocial and deviant behaviors as a reaction. These have costs.

11.
Adolescent males are seriously limited by society in the personal choices available to them with respect to what and whom they can become or be. Their peers and themselves are negatively portrayed up and down the genderist land. yet even those choosing the path of work, marriage and family are openly taken advantage of and cast or presented as even bigger fools.

12.
The state has legalized theft, usury and the annexation of other peoples property on account of bestial femaleness. Yet, when males commit these same acts of theft, usury or annexation of other peoples property as they are taught, they end up in jail. [Hence greater numbers of males in jail and greater costs to all]

13.
For the reasons of severe anti-male chauvinism in society today, male crimes which can only structurally increase due to male bastardy are punished more and more severely. That is, up to and including imprisonment or execution. [These are unfair and undue punishments which were only invented to punish and to control males reacting to bastardy and exploitation. But again these cost plenty.]

14.
Adult males are the greatest social target of exploitation and extortion within all age categories of males even going beyond extortionate child support levied on fathers.[ A reason why demented, reactionary or disobeying members of the male sex are to be found over represented in correctional program's by state, which do cost society a great deal] .

15.
Adult males having no protected rights to their person, their progeny or their property will inevitably react badly. If they can be hauled off to wars where they will be expected to kill or maim other males, and then made to pay a bastards CS on their return, they are sure to react. That is especially if Adult males alone can be executed in the field or interred at home for refusing to obey extortionate war or court orders.

16.
Just as the shelter or refuge is an ideological place of last resort for unscrupulous females and mothers, this genderist culture holds the jailhouse or prison yard as an appropriate ideological place of first resort for males who cant pay extortionate CS amounts. But these ideological places cost don’t they ?

17.
An adult woman has no right to sole residence or custody over any child’s life, if by her own independent means and resources, she is unable to care for herself or the said child over whom she asserts rights to single motherhood. And it will not do, to show that here or there, resides a man or any other party, whom may forcibly be tapped for resources, on which the sole residence or custody of such a child may be granted in a womans favor. Otherwise society creates an incentive and a stake in the bastardization of children.

18.
An adult woman is not just simply obligated to herself and her selfish desires, in relation to the upbringing and socialization of a child. An adult woman is also obligated to give daily account of her parenting to the child’s father, to the child itself and to the rest of a civilized society. This parental obligation cannot be discharged in the genderist society that institutes the barbaric concept of sole custody and child support as a woman’s social-justice right.

19.
A once, if ever, civilized society only progressively destroys itself, if it continually and deliberately undermines the very basic unit of structure, rule of law and good social order in the family unit. How can you expect to tame the wilder instincts and immoderate desires of children prior to adulthood in their fathers absence ? Especially where their very teacher, as mother, is herself encouraged by society to behave as a barbaric parasite, a slovenly pig or an unrestrained dog. This is not social justice but social suicide !!!

20.
The ideologically craven society following genderist tenets, never ever recovers back to greatness following its deliberate destruction: For far too many of such a societies most precious gifts in robust children and conscientious male parents, have been slaughtered or cannibalized, jailed for involuntary poverty or deprivation, or denuded of good common sense by their expropriation and bastardization.

-Half school ‘failures’ are white working-class boys, says report
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2108862,00.html

-Most of the persistent low achievers in England’s schools are poor and white, and far more are boys than girls, a Joseph Rowntree Foundation study says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6223968.stm

-And, according to a study published today by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, nearly half of all pupils who leave school without any or with few qualifications are white British males.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article1969156.ece

-White working-class boys perform worse than any other ethnic or gender group at school, according to a study published today.

-They suffer because their parents fail to talk to them at home and they have a culture in their communities that it is “uncool” to learn, says the report commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article2692502.ece

-White boys are being turned into an unemployable underclass – as they fall behind children from other racial groups at school, new research shows.

-Almost half of all children leaving school without any good GCSEs are white British males, according to figures published today.

-Illiterate white boys outnumber white girls by two to one and have vastly inferior reading and writing skills at the age of 11.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/22/nschools322.xml

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 18, 2012 at 15:09

Cost of child support enforcement in florida

In Florida last year, taxpayers paid $4.5 million for the state to collect $162,000 from deadbeat parents

Broken down, the state of Florida, using state and federal funds, paid about $4 for every $1 collected, according to Donna O’Neal, spokesperson for the Florida Department of Revenue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel November 18, 2012 at 15:17

Those who “work?” within the walls of the child support Machine will want to protect their jobs, high wages and promotions.
CS has become a big industry: if anyone is dedicated enough to make the claculation of the costs, I am sure it will be in the many billions of dollars. Thousands and thousands of flushy and easy jobs are at stake.

No way this will go away: much too much money is involved.

However, these hard laws are having an effect: it would seem that the tougher the laws the fewer children are born.
This appears to me like the beginning of a solution. If the laws get a hell of a lot tougher, then a growing number of men will hesitate before they dip their wick into a poisonous mixture.

Some years ago, Montreal was the world’s leader for the number of bank hold-ups. Hold ups had become a daily occurence until…. the govmt stepped in and made a new set of laws: any hold-up (even with a plastic gun) was followed by an immediate arrest (or just shot on sight) and the sentence became 25 years in jail with no parole.
The number of hod-ups falled to just about zero in no time flat.

The same reasoning will hold here: you “produce” a child? the sentence is so heavy that nothing in the world will make you commit the crime.
Problem solved and billions saved.

How will women manage to have kids? Well, first, it’s entirely their problem. But then, there are millions of children, worldwide, who could benefit from adoption, there is also the “anonymous” gift of “juice” and then, last but not least, a lab in the U.K. presently produces artificial sperm for farmers: they could produce human sperm just as easily.

And what do men do? Well, have sex with women who have
lived long past their reproductive years, think of “self-service”,
Whores, toys, etc…
Also, the market will demand better sex toys (mostly men) and that’s where technology will come to the rescue.(Artificial reality?)

And, by the way, there is also the possibility of migrating to another country…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
brigadon November 18, 2012 at 16:55

@rebel- why do you think ‘deadbeats’ have their passports suspended?
If I could get out of this country, I would do it without second thoughts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
3DShooter November 18, 2012 at 18:56

” In essence, the idea is that single mothers depending on welfare handouts to survive are a financial problem for the state. ”

The problem is in the premise – that being that it is society’s problem rather than “putting the pain where the problem is”. That is with ‘single mothers’.

The fact of the matter is that society is now paying MORE for maintaining single mothers than they were under the pre-1996 legislation. Under the old rules, the state set a limit on the amount that a woman could collect per child for child support.

Enter the a special interest group, based in Denver CO (sorry, the name escapes me at the moment) who determined that women should be getting 5x what the state was providing and that burden should be burdened by the fathers. To enforce this scheme it was determined that under Title IV-D that states would be eligible to receive a 70% kick-back on amounts collected via child support enforcement.

Do the math – the burden on the public sector, as a result, is actually in the neighborhood of 3.5x the cost of the old system which placed limits on the amount of transfer payments that were awarded. It made for good sound bites for the plebe’s in the ’90′s but it fails to hold water if you just do the math.

Big Daddy Gov is really good at misdirection and Boobus amerikanus is easily mislead by BS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
V10 November 18, 2012 at 19:06

Tom Leykis put it succinctly:

The solution to deadbeat dads is for women to stop fucking deadbeats.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Cultural_Expat November 18, 2012 at 19:16

I’d have to agree with Rebel. the child support system, like many other govt. sponsered systems are unsustainable, unproductive, enterprises that work….exactly as they are supposed to. They transfer wealth, wether from productive and societally valuable pursuits or not. they produce make work programs for a largely ignorant, group think, voting block. that said, and as is oft Quoted “…that which cannot continue ceases to continue…” One day, similiar to that day in the late 1980′s, americans will wake up to a major deconstruction similiar in effect (methods inknown…the scary part) to that which happenned in the Soviet Union. They could no longer sustain or hide the decade after decade hollowing out of their economy paying for services that provided negative value.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 18, 2012 at 19:54

In Florida last year, taxpayers paid $4.5 million for the state to collect $162,000 from deadbeat parents

Broken down, the state of Florida, using state and federal funds, paid about $4 for every $1 collected, according to Donna O’Neal, spokesperson for the Florida Department of Revenue.

Those numbers don’t add up, Ethical. If they collected $162,000, at 4:1 that would mean they spent $648,000. $4,500,000/$162,000 is closer to $28 for every $ collected, unless they are just speaking of the state expenses and not counting the Federal money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steve November 18, 2012 at 20:27

Like any welfare industry, the bulk off the returns go to those administering the “system”. After all, we need to employ all those social,workers and lawyers coming out of college on some noble cause (don’t we)?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Contrarian Expatriate November 18, 2012 at 23:25

The cost is justified through additional female (and magina) votes. Any assault on the child support industry would be another opportunity for feminists to again sound the alarm for “The War on Women” and ensure the Democrats rule for generations to come.

Feminism has co-opted this nation socially and politically. If there was any reason not to permit women to vote, this is it. Our electorate is now swayed by emotional appeals to assaults on womanhood rather than responding to a downward spiral into the abyss.

This is the thanks for what our forefathers have done. A femocracy in its final stages of life.

There is no hope; get out while you still can……

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam November 19, 2012 at 05:05

Thrasymachus November 18, 2012 at 13:13
” The purpose of the system is not to provide for the well-being of children, but to provide for the well-being of system supporters through income and the enjoyment of the arbitrary exercise of power on its behalf.”
As people, to a man, seem to agree. And that these structures are byzantine sheltered employment programmes for .. women.
It’s a win-win, from their perspective.
Just have to shake the money-tree good and hard, and down it rains. Plenty more where that came from, eh? Why should they think there’s any sort of teensy-weensy problemette baked into that yummy cake?
What has been, shall always be, in W.o.Wimminz.

The Contrarian Expatriate: ” .. ensure the Democrats rule for generations to come.”
Seems like the whole jerry-rigged arrangement is going to the ground sooner or later anyhow. Not being immortal, to me “sooner” sounds a lot better than “later”.
Let’s get it over with. Have the maniac at the controls full-time, frantically denying the existence of gravitational force, without the co-pilot hauling the nose up now and again before it craters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 19, 2012 at 06:41

zed said:

Those numbers don’t add up, Ethical.

@zed:
My guess is that the 4.5 million was to collect from deadbeats and the 4:1 ratio was overall (including non-deadbeats). The total child support collected in Florida is likely in the billions rather than millions. If you contact Donna O’Neal to ask her let us know what she says.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 November 19, 2012 at 08:17

You are correct. CSRU’s RECEIVE large amounts of money, much like a bank system. They boast about their receipts as if it were a major achievement, when it is not. They are nothing more than a repository for receipts, and do very little to get all that money.

Most men who do not pay, do not pay because they can’t find a job. Even the women involved admit this fact.

CS is no more than a standard slavery system, period. Force one person to work for another, with no benefits received in exchange.

What did slaves do when they tired of slavery? Pretty much what men should be doing. GTHO.

The border crossings from Mexico are a two way process. It is not easy to move around Mexico without legal papers, but people have done it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 November 19, 2012 at 08:27

Margaret Mead’s 1950′s book, MALE AND FEMALE, reported that only one society ever succeeded in convincing men to support any children except the children of a current lover, living with them. That one society, a no count jungle society, trained boys from birth to support their sister’s children.

Any time something is universal among all societies, you can be sure it is based on a basic element of human nature, and any society which dinks with it is not going to last long.

Not just child support violates basic human nature, but so does alimony; property settlement; for adulteresses, and adulteress custody of children. Let us not leave out affirmative action programs which give jobs to less competent people as a matter of law, while the most competent people are told to go sleep under a bridge in a cardboard box..

Note that our society is about to cease to exist in its present form. Is anyone willing to wager this society will exist in its present form 50 years, nay, even 20 years from now? I am not even sure about 5 years from now. No surprise found here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
piedpiper November 19, 2012 at 08:52

Before the government extracts more children and money from men, it should consider giving men a fair shot at raising the kids, at least until the ex wife dismounts from the carousel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rotten November 19, 2012 at 09:03

I’d say the govt has somewhat successfully achieved its goal. In Scale 2, nobody has to work, while in scale 1 somebody has to work. The whole enterprise is perhaps wasteful, save that citizens who may not be working at all are forced back into the labor force.

Often fathers, aged and stripped by the government of their wives and children, feel no compunction to toil in the rat race the way they once did. And at the end of the day, that is themain reason why any guy works at any job ever: to get laid and support his family. Under conditions of near involuntary servitude, the govt is forcing them back into the system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mikediver November 19, 2012 at 13:23

The question asked that is marked in all caps in my mind is, “will it last even 5 years?” I am clinging to the hope that I can get to retirement in a little less than 5 years. The reelection of our commander and thief has put my GTHO plans in severe jeopardy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* November 19, 2012 at 20:31

I am writing a men’s rights manifesto. Actually it is a small book of parody entitled:
Condoms are not romantic: How one man’s effort to get out of paying child support by tricking china into mispricing derivatives made him a lot of money.
Get out of paying child support on July 15th!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bobsutan November 20, 2012 at 07:59

The Tom Leykis quote V10 posted makes a great point. However, so long as women are not held accountable and are constantly bailed out by Uncle Sam as a surrogate father and husband, there will be no impetus for women to make any changes themselves. Look at what happened in urban centers were the black illegitimacy rate is north of 70%. That didn’t happen overnight or in a vacuum. 20 years or so ago it was around 40%, which is where we’re at nationally. If things continue down their current path it stands to reason the national illegitimacy rate may climb just as high in another generation or two as the crap that things happened in the poor areas begins to happen across the board. Only time will tell.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MaMu1977 November 20, 2012 at 18:52

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: the fatherless rate (prior to the Sixties) was calculated by fathers’ presence, not by fathers’ actions. It’s like the “1 out of every 4 women will be raped in their lifetime!”, statistic (normal peoples’ minds flash to the minority or homeless man with a knife; but feminists are including women who thought they were fucking doctors, women who say, “OK, let’s get this over with”, after their SOs’ 100th whine, prostitutes, women who never got called back…)

In the Sixties, the black illegitinacy rate was given as 19-22%, because that was the percent of children whose fathers weren’t at the dinner table on a regular basis. Did that number include cads who ran off? Yes. Did that number include various forms of bad boys? Yes. But, it also included:

Migrant workers (prior to the Fifties, there were plenty of black men who did the farm rounds. Ethnic whites as well, which explains how the Irish and Italian illegitimacy rates were also artificially inflated.) If Daddy married Mommy, but Daddy spent April through June picking cotton and September through November picking fruit in a different state, the children were considered “illegitimate”. Sometimes, Daddy had Family No. 2 who *also* only saw Daddy at the dinner table a few months per year. Sometimes, Daddy was married to a woman who *refused* to leave her home state, even though Daddy was making major money at his new job (personal example: my great-uncle left the rez at 22, a year after his wife had their first child. For the next decade, he worked in a Pontiac factory in Michigan, she collected half of his check every week in North Carolina. For a decade, despite the wedding certificate and no evidence of divorce, my father’s cousins were fatherless and counted as “illegitimate”)

Felons. If Daddy married Mommy, but Daddy was doing a quick 3-5 upstate for a “job gone wrong”, those children were also considered “illegitimate”(when RICO got into high gear, there were enough low-level bagmen, hired muscle and number runners arrested to push the Italian illegitimacy rate over 25%. Ask Rudy Guiliani.)

Casualties. If Daddy didn’t pay his bookie, if Daddy *was* a bookkeeping who was skimming off the top, if Daddy was dumb (but not dumb enough to take up his boss’s wife on her invitation), if Daddy got lost in a swamp or a snowstorm or a hurricane, if Daddy just crossed the wrong guy during a bar fight, the children became “illegitimate”. After all, as mentioned above, the illegitimacy rate was based on the fatherless rate. If Daddy is dead or disappeared, he isn’t showing up for dinner…

Have women always fallen for the tousled bad boy, the flamboyant musician, the favored son of the local politician, the son of a preacher man? Of course. Have there always been men who couldn’t or wouldn’t “man up”? Of course. Were those men ever responsible for the majority of “fatherless” children, even among the lowest on the financial totem pole? Never

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dave November 20, 2012 at 22:21

It’s no mystery why family courts treat men like ATMs, but I’m rather puzzled as to why men accept such treatment. Consider an alternate scenario:

* A women decides she’s unhappy and divorces her husband.

* The court orders the man to pay child support far in excess of his earning power.

* Forced to live in his car, he’s fired for looking like a bum. At the next court hearing, he talks back to the judge and is thrown in jail.

* While he’s getting three hots and a cot, the wife is brutally robbed, beaten and raped by a gang of thugs who seem to know her daily routine.

* The ex-wife is institutionalized with severe mental trauma and brain damage. The man gets out of jail, finds a job, rents a house, and takes custody of the children.

In fact, many men would tell the system to go fuck itself. These guys get more sex and father more children than wimpy, slavish nice-guy ATMs, and if their relationship (rarely a formal marriage) doesn’t work out, the woman skips family court and goes straight to the welfare office.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
I am not a crook December 3, 2012 at 02:16

Single fathers are slaves and no one seems to care. I have tried to find info on father’s rights lobbies that are currently active so that I can help fight the injustice someway… in the meantime here is something to spread around… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD1X-02liMU

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: