There is no consideration of need just ability to pay. Fathers are not just seen as sperm donors but as ATMs. We operate under the illusion that the money is all for kids but there is zero requirement to spend it on the kids. We have a hierarchy of who needs to be protected by the law and who doesn't and that hierarchy is driven by the soft minded liberals who have taken over our university system. If you start with the idea that men and especially white men are the root of all evil it is hardly surprising that law schools puke a group of people who seldom side with white men, unless of course they are being paid to. We pass laws in this country that encourages companies to pay women more do the same jobs but punishes you if you can prove that a man being paid more actually deserves it. Really not that much different that three white men beating a black man is a hate crime while three black men beating a white man is a sing of how society has failed the black community. It all comes from the same idea that some groups should be made "extra" equal to balance things out.
Sorry but I don't by the whole "societal roles" crap. That may part of the problem but the idea that woman can decide she would rather be sleepy with some other guy who pays more attention to her so can just take the kids and the courts will force the poor son of bitch who married to give her thirty percent of his pay for the next 15 years is a new idea and does not come from outdated social norms but misguided attempts to conduct social engineering. 50 years ago if your wife was a drug addict who slept all day while your kids lived in filth you could take the kids and leave her but now she goes into rehab, which have to pay for, and gets the kids to move with the meth head she met in rehab. Feminism was not an innocent bystander but a primary driver in that change. Mothers and their right should be protected at all cost (including the children) in the name of the children. They are a lot like teacher's unions in that regard.
Sorry if I ranted on you rant.
I pretty much agree with most of what you have to say here, with the addition that the notion of mandatory child support is completely at odds with the expressed positions on parenthood vis a vis abortion rights. If it is your body & your choice, you can damn well pay for it. With the great power to decide whether or not to carry a child to term comes the responsibility to pay for it. The funny thing is that people on that side of the ideological spectrum have actually called me a hypocrite for opposing aboriton but not adopting unwanted babies, but no doubt would be completely unable to see the connection between the sole power of decision-making on the reproductive issue and the obligation to assume the sole responsibility for taking care of the offspring. A woman can basically opt out of the child care process at any point, presumably up until it gets old enough to know who she is, but the man can be forced to be the primary financially responsible party at her discretion, and can't compell her to even carry "their" child to term. How does expelling a fetus from your vagina engender a relationship with, obligations on the part of, a man when no such legally recognized relationship existed five minutes before? Equal protection means the man has equal rights to opt out. I actually knew of a case of a teenage boy (through a commonly aquainted priest) who got his girlfriend pregnant and they had an agreement to give the baby up for adoption. He had signed the paperwork on the agreement, but when the baby was born, she changed her mind, decided she wanted to be a mommy, and his future was canceled by the hormone-driven whim of a teenage girl. He had to give up college and all prospects of a career in order to undertake the financial support of a child that legally should no long have been his. And given the numbers and stats on the outcomes of children of unmarried mothers, they weren't doing the little bastard any favors either. Three lives screwed up, because a female child is the only one legally empowered to make the decision. I wonder how easy it would be to make such a selfish choice if she knew there was no free ride, and SHE'D be the one who had to get a job?
While morally, I agree with the obligations of a man towards his biological offspring, legally, I cannot accept such practices in a country that asserts the right to equal protection under the law AND where one gender has the right to abdicate their those obligations at will.
As for the plight of the men deprived of custody, I don't have much to say beyond "put a ring on her finger" and "don't go sleeping with a woman you are not absolutely sure you can trust in that regard."
It might be harsh, but the only way to cure a whole host of social ills might be by linking obligatory child support to marriage. And a flat rate, regardless of the father's income. A child has the same needs regardless of the parents' financial situation. A basic minimum requirement is all that they should be obliged to pay. Otherwise, if we are going to be fair, the tax deductions for offspring should be greater for rich people. But that's the problem with the whole rotten structure of child support and custody practices in this country - at every point you turn around, it is in direct contradiction to some other social, moral or legal principle. Either a child costs $X a year or it costs X% of your income. When it suits the feminists, the percentage is used to extract more from a successful father. When it suits the government, the flat rate is used to extract more money from the wealthy, who nonetheless, spend much more money on their children. If you want the benefits of your child having the lifestyle of a rich man's kid, marry the man and put up with him. Or keep your legs together. Life's tough that way.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
*NM*
- 19/08/2013 11:45:22 PM
1037 Views