Conference quark::mennotes

    Brings up an interesting point...too many times, it's the judge's
    personal views that influence the outcome of civil and domestic. You
    could very well end up getting screwed for a *very* long time if the
    judge happens to have a bad hair day that day.
    
    -john

    I thought it was very interesting and telling that the equality crowd
    is not demanding fairness before the bar.  they have run to the courts
    for years to point out inequality when it went against them, but have
    the ability to remain silent when they are the benficiaries of
    inequality.
    
    AS more of these examples get publicity, I think there will be a
    growing backlash against a lot of these equality groups.  this is based
    on the fact that it will finally dawn on folks that there is no desire
    for equality, but rather advantage.  That will not sit well with a
    large number of folks.
    

.0>    Seems like some of the issues of equality are not sitting well with
.0>    those demanding them.

	Is this a conclusion you drew to the article ?   Why ?

	If an individual man tries to get an alimony award thrown out
would that mean he was working for or against equality ?    I would guess
it meant the man didn't want to pay and was trying to get out of it.
I don't think I would infer some group agenda from it.

	You said that some individual women were trying to get alimony
awards thrown out.   Does this mean they are working for or against
equality, or does it maybe just mean those individuals want to get out
of paying ?

	Maybe there is more in the article which you didn't include ?

	Did NOW make a public statement the women shouldn't have to
pay alimony ?   Or do you think they should petition the court to
uphold the alimony ?

my brother-inlaw, (unfortunately, he died this past december
at 34 from Cancer) was trying to win custody of his two kids,

The judge at the preliminary hearing, had told Jimmy, that
she'd already made up her mind, and it was her feeling
that she was going to keep the kids with the mother,,,

She hadn't even gotten into the case yet...  The Lawyer
starting working immediately to get a new judge, that
never happened, and the case was basically lost before
it ever started...  nice huh?

Who ever said there's justice in justice ?

    .3
    
    The issue around alimony, as it has been publicly presented, is one of
    fairness and equality.  This has been a rallying point for feminists
    and others for decades.
    
    Now that the situations is changing there is no outcry from the same
    quarters that supported the fairness and equality of alimony.  My views
    of alimony are really unimportant but the silence on the other side is
    deafening.
    

    
    Re:5
    
        Well said!
    
                                  Bill

    Never in my life have I even MET a woman who gets alimony.

    The name of the game these days is child support, unless the people
    are extremely wealthy.

    So individual men *and* women are objecting to having to pay alimony
    now.  Until men stop making such objections, it sounds like equality
    for women to stand up to object, too.

    Or, would it be more equal if individual men were allowed to object 
    but individual women were not?

    I know a number of women who recieve alimony/maintence. Guess your
    running in a differnt circle or your just not listening to em... (what
    else is new) 8^)
    

    You live in a different state than I do, so I would imagine that we
    do run in different circles.
    
    Alimony is extremely rare these days, and it's almost always contested.
    
    So now women contest it in the same way that men contest it.  Hardly
    a good excuse to do the bashing/trashing that happens no matter what
    anyway.
    

    My brother had to pay $5k/yr for 10 years.
    
    In Colorado it's just  hidden in "child support".  
    
    fred();

    'Alimony' has a very legal definition.  If someone does not pay
    alimony outright, then they simply don't pay it (no matter what
    anyone might think is being done informally.)
    

    yea, right.  Tell that to the guy whose kids go in rags and hungry
    while mommy parties.  Or should we just call it what it is...theft.
    
    fred();

    
    Yeah, right - women live it up and party like hell on $5K per year.
    
    It's so far below the poverty line that they can't even SEE it from
    there.
    

    re .14
    
    >    Yeah, right - women live it up and party like hell on $5K per year.
    
    Where did anyone say that $5k/yr was _all_ she was living on?  Just who
    is it that is not crediting women with the abitlity to work now?
    
    fred();

    
    Oh gee, you mean to say that "mommy" is doing more than just partying???
    
    Why didn't you say that she was being responsible and supporting her
    family?  Why would you leave out this part?
    

    I need to jump in for a second here. I know that raising a kid is
    expensive, but an infant is more expensive than say a 6 yearold..one
    who eats the same food you do, drinks the same milk you do and can use
    the same toiletries as you do. So I don't understand why it is that
    women who make an substantial salary, can manage to buy a new car and
    can manage to "revamp" their own wardrobe, yet, when it is determined
    that the 6 yr old is growing out of his clothes, the gun slowly points
    in the direction of the father,
    "oh, I don't get enough child support". HUH? I can understand an infant
    and a single mom. This is difficult, daycare, formula diapers, baby
    food and all the other things that lists are too long for. But I feel
    that if the mother is working and has to live in an apt anyway, the
    amount of child support should be the amount that would support the
    child...when I got pregnant, I gave up a few things in life, like
    having a new car, a new wardrobe and new shoes to match..so that my
    child can have clothes, accessories and such, my husbands ex...was
    using it to go to foxwoods...she voluntarily quit her job..yes folks
    because she said that she'd get more as an unemployed single mother. So
    she cashed her cs checks at the "foxwoods entertainment centers" in CT.
    but cried poor when we didn't understand why the child look emaciated,
    and his clothes were too small. So not knowing what she was doing..I
    went and bought $200 worth of clothes forthe kid..thinking..oh, the kid
    needs clothes, she's out of work..it's probably not easy, this until I
    saw the stamps on the back of a  months worth of child support checks
    that had been cashed. 
    A friend of mines ex wife makes more than he does, demands the child go
    to a private school, 10 more blocks away from home and still fights him
    atleast twice a month in court for more money. fights him on more time
    with his son. Won't let him bond with his child, yet He pays upwards of 
    $200 a week for a 6yrold. Who never has new clothes and lives in the
    house he surrended to his ex.
    Yet another friend of mines ex pays somewhere between 200 and 245 a
    week for a 9 year old and has to pay for the tap classes, the dance
    classes the little tutu's and acccessories...or she drags him back to
    court for another jab at his side. 
    
    two sides..Susan..Some women *ARE* out there leaving their kids behind
    and taking the money and frivolously spending it for their own
    recreation. If the money was put into a fund for ONLY CHILD SUPPORT.
    THis would be difficult for these woman to survive because they feel
    they are owed this to themselves..not the children. Face it the only
    people who suffer in divorce are the kids. Always caught between two
    adult egos and never having a chance to see the real picture.
    there are some real losers for guys, but there is definately a real
    market for loser ex wives also. 
    
      

    RE: .16  

    > So I don't understand why it is tha women who make an substantial 
    > salary, can manage to buy a new car and can manage to "revamp" 
    > their own wardrobe, yet, when it is determined that the 6 yr old 
    > is growing out of his clothes, the gun slowly points in the direction 
    > of the father,

    Easy question to answer.  **WOMEN** (as a group) do not do this.

    Individual women may do it, just as individual men rape and murder
    women - if you want to blame "women" for it by saying that women do
    it in general, then call men rapists and murderers in general, too.

    > "oh, I don't get enough child support". HUH? 

    I was a single mother, and I never once ASKED for (nor received)
    a penny in child support.  At the time, most of the women I knew
    were strictly making it on their own (either by choice or because
    the dad took off without leaving a forwarding address.)

    > won't let him bond with his child

    In my case, I gave the non-paying father unlimited visitation and
    did everything possible to let him bond with his son (even though
    he wasn't paying a dime in child support.)

    He tried to spend some time with him, but never gave him a single
    birthday card or present.  He quit seeing my son when the little
    boy was 4.5 years old.  When my son called him at the age of 10,
    the guy promised to visit him at Thanksgiving, but never showed
    up and never called to say why.

    > two sides..Susan..Some women *ARE* out there leaving their kids behind
    > and taking the money and frivolously spending it for their own recreation.

    Every horror story you can name can be matched by horror stories
    about Dads who did little or nothing to support or bond with their
    children.

    Women are usually described as 'living it up' on the hundreds of dollars
    they get from the Dads who do pay.

    You've never been a single mom - well, I have (and I knew lots and lots
    of others.)  None of us lived it up, I can tell you.

    Two sides means that there are legions of honest, hard-working women
    out there who raised kids without a lot of help (always putting their
    kids' needs first.)
    
    Suzanne

    Getting back to alimony - if men can contest it (and they do),
    then by God, women can contest it as well.
    
    Anything less than this is not equality.
    

    Susan,
     
    I do notice how you don't consider the legions of honest hard working
    men that do everything and anything to be with there child shy of
    having to have any contact with the mother, which in my opinion is 
    what starts the issues to begin with. The mother is angry that the ex
    only wants to see the child, not the mother.  
    
    You obviously missed the point because you are blinded by anger about 
    being a single mom. No I have not had the dubious distinction you have 
    placed on yourself as being a single mom..but I do have the honor of 
    knowing a few moms with no husbands..or fathers to their children for 
    that matter. They don't consider themselve single moms, they consider 
    themselve great moms and I also do. They don't complain, they don't 
    chastise and they still to this day, don't have one nasty word infront 
    of the kids about their father. I know it's hard for some of them, but
    they manage. 
    
    So now I ask you this: So because a couple makes a mistake and marries for
    the wrong reasons..assuming the wife goes along with this because she
    is signing the divorce decree too, does this mean that the man is band
    from getting on with a new life. Does this only relate to woman. Men
    are to struggle and "get by". Don't use the double income thing because
    it washes if the woman marries again..which happens more often than the
    man remarrying. So now that I have married a divorced man I should
    expect that OUR child should get less because the other child came
    first. NOT! He should oblige his responsiblity or even seek custody but 
    it shouldn't effect our lives. It's past and that part of his life is
    over.  
    
    Two sides does mean that I've seen it all. I also almost get to the
    point where I understand why some men are angry. I've been to
    court..I've watched this play out. I have heard about the Me me me
    thing and not once the child child child thing. Believe me i have no
    sympathy for you...I gather your dignity rises you above that, yet I
    feel that when you split from your spouse, these are the cards that
    have been dealt. You either fold, or you play through. It doesn't
    matter what the other person is doing...it matters only what you are
    doing. If you are doing what is best for the kid. This is all that
    counts. Struggling happens in a two income family also. If the child
    doesn't see his father, don't you think the father should be the one
    concerned. Be honest with the kid an say...sorry I can't answer for him
    son but someday you'll know why. Kids in general don't want long
    explainations..they want instant gradification..tell me anything fast.
    
    
    how come you didn't pick up on the " there are men and woman that are
    both losers." part? This tells me your anger jumped up and bit me
    before you finished my thought. 
    
    There are woman and men who could be characterized as losers. There are
    also woman who expect to be the single mother victum and then there are
    mothers who are mothers without partners and do for their child because
    that is what they do. They hand down no judgements and don't show their 
    anger in public. There are also countless stories about men getting the 
    crap kicked out of them in court because the judge is having a very bad 
    day...male or female judge.  Unbelievable regulations that are there to
    protect the REAL victums, not the fabricated ones...and don't tell me
    there are no fabricated victums. They are the ones that make it hard fo
    the real victums to have their voices heard..you know like the REAL
    horrors of rape from the women that really get raped and no one listens
    because you have the deviants that fabricate this. GEt rid of the
    deviants that fabricate and people will take the subject more
    seriously. But how do you weed out the deviants without invalidating
    the real issues and the real victums...it is very difficult isn't it. 
    
    I've been reading this string and your comments and I see more
    hostility than reason. that is what walks into our courts. Hostility
    and not reason. We are still paying on a walk through hostility to tell
    a "partnerless" mother that smoking in her asthmatic childs face is
    child abuse. We had to have a court order instated to get her to stop.
    This is one of those "few" mothers that are losers. Gee, I don't think
    that being a single mother gives anyone the right to be stupid...do
    you? Would you have to be told more than once that smoking in the
    childs face or presents is causing detremental effects on his
    breathing? No probably not, because you're a good mom..some woman
    aren't!!!!
    that is all i'm saying. 
    

I have tried to stay out of this.

As long as you all keep talking in generalizations, you're all going to be in a
pissing contest with each other.  Anyone will be able to find examples of the
norms and the extremes.  Standard statistical theories will apply here.  There
is a bell curve and standard deviations, etc.

Cite specific cases if you wish, but declare them so.  Do NOT generalize them to
other situations.  Sure, there may be additional examples.

I happen to be one of those males that is impacted by the selfish and
financially imprudent wife.  I will leave a lot of the detail out as she has
friends in this company and anything I write, whether in jest or not, could be
used against me.  Simply a situation I want to avoid.

In my case, there is a support order in the amount of $521/wk for her and (I am
not divorced yet so tax status hasn't changed) what I have left is <$300.  This
is for two kids.  If I change tax status (which I have to do), this yields me
~$150/wk.  And none of this can be used as a claim for adjustment.  I am
fighting that on other grounds, and I don't care to discuss the issue openly. 
Perhaps later anonymously.

Grahame

    I know I can site cases. How about you Suzanne? Actual case and number
    and date...

    >> Women and men as groups are honest, hard-working parents.

    > I do notice how you don't consider the legions of honest hard working
    > men that do everything and anything to be with there child shy of
    > having to have any contact with the mother, which in my opinion is 
    > what starts the issues to begin with. The mother is angry that the ex
    > only wants to see the child, not the mother.  

    Excuse me??  Did you read the part quoted above?

    > You obviously missed the point because you are blinded by anger about 
    > being a single mom. 

    You are blinded by anger about your husband's ex-wife.  Pure and simple.

    > No I have not had the dubious distinction you have placed on yourself 
    > as being a single mom..

    Hello?  What 'dubious distinction' are you talking about?  I was (both
    legally and quite literally) a single mother.  What else was I supposed
    to call it to please you?

    > but I do have the honor of knowing a few moms with no husbands..
    > or fathers to their children for that matter. They don't consider 
    > themselve single moms, they consider themselve great moms and I also do.

    What???????  Since when is 'single mom' the opposite of 'GREAT mom'??????
    This has never been the case in my experience.

    Your prejudices are showing, big time.  

    > They don't complain, they don't chastise 

    Sorry for not understanding that you can blast the hell out of women
    all you want, but women aren't allowed to blast back.  Nice system.

    > and they still to this day, don't have one nasty word infront of 
    > the kids about their father. I know it's hard for some of them,
    > but they manage. 

    Have you seen me speak to my child about his father?  Surely you
    aren't suggesting that my willingness to write a note is proof that
    I say these things to my son.

    > So now I ask you this: So because a couple makes a mistake and marries 
    > for the wrong reasons..assuming the wife goes along with this because
    > she is signing the divorce decree too, does this mean that the man is
    > band from getting on with a new life. 

    I know how much you hate all this stuff as the second wife, but divorce
    is not a cake-walk for women, either.

    > Men are to struggle and "get by".

    Divorced women struggle and 'get by'.

    > So now that I have married a divorced man I should expect that OUR 
    > child should get less because the other child came first. NOT! He 
    > should oblige his responsiblity or even seek custody but it shouldn't 
    > effect our lives. It's past and that part of his life is over.  

    It's the tough part about being a second wife, I know.  But you knew
    he'd been married before when you got involved with him.  

    > Two sides does mean that I've seen it all. I also almost get to the
    > point where I understand why some men are angry. 

    You don't understand why women get angry, though.

    > I've been to court..I've watched this play out. I have heard about 
    > the Me me me thing and not once the child child child thing. 

    I've been to court, too.  I've heard about how some men want to marry
    their second wives and leave their old lives behind.

    > Believe me i have no sympathy for you...

    I have none for you either.  You knew what you were getting into by
    marrying a man with an ex-wife and a child.

    > I gather your dignity rises you above that, yet I feel that when you 
    > split from your spouse, these are the cards that have been dealt. 
    > You either fold, or you play through. It doesn't matter what the 
    > other person is doing...it matters only what you are doing. If you 
    > are doing what is best for the kid. This is all that counts. 

    I did what was best for my child.  We went on with our lives and
    did well for ourselves.

    > Struggling happens in a two income family also. If the child
    > doesn't see his father, don't you think the father should be the
    > one concerned. Be honest with the kid an say...sorry I can't 
    > answer for him son but someday you'll know why. Kids in general 
    > don't want long explainations..they want instant gradification..
    > tell me anything fast.
        
    I handled the situation, thank you.  You haven't raised a child
    yet - I have.  No need for your advice, but thanks anyway.

    > how come you didn't pick up on the " there are men and woman that
    > are both losers." part? This tells me your anger jumped up and bit me
    > before you finished my thought. 

    Your anger stood out more.

    > There are woman and men who could be characterized as losers. There
    > are also woman who expect to be the single mother victum 

    This is your prejudice speaking.  I don't consider the term 'single
    mother' to be negative.  You do - so it's your problem.

    > and then there are mothers who are mothers without partners 

    This is your "politically correct" term for single mothers.
    Again, it's your prejudice.  Your problem.

    > and do for their child because that is what they do. 

    This is how **I** define "single mothers".

    > They hand down no judgements and don't show their anger in public. 

    YOU are allowed to show all YOUR anger in public, though.
    How convenient for you.  Another person who gets to make
    the rules.

    > There are also countless stories about men getting the crap kicked 
    > out of them in court because the judge is having a very bad 
    > day...male or female judge. 

    Countless stories tell of women who get killed because they dared
    to leave their husbands.  

    > GEt rid of the deviants that fabricate and people will take the 
    > subject more seriously. 

    Don't use deviants as an EXCUSE to not take subjects seriously.
    It's not rocket science to treat the deviants differently than
    real victims.

    > I've been reading this string and your comments and I see more
    > hostility than reason. that is what walks into our courts.
    > Hostility and not reason. 

    I've been reading the other notes in this conference (including yours.)
    Your hostility is the reason for mine here.

    > because you're a good mom..some woman aren't!!!!
    > that is all i'm saying. 

    No, you made statements about women in general (how women with 
    substantial incomes still let their children go without new
    clothes, etc.)

    I'm just saying that mothers and fathers in general are honest,
    hard-working people.

    I am sorry that you're so angry about your husband's ex-wife.
    It doesn't mean a thing about women in general, though.

    Rauh, it's against Digital policy to cite specific (private) aspects
    about other people's lives in notesfiles, isn't it?
    
    Be careful.
    

    re: .22
    
    Well, I must be another one of those women blinded by my
    anger about my SO's ex-wife.  
    
    He doesn't mind paying the money.  He doesn't mind paying
    extra.  Heck, sometimes I come up with the extra, and we
    aren't even married.  But we want to make sure it goes to
    the child.  So far, it's gone to a new mini-van, landscaping,
    a wedding, and a trip to Disneyworld.  My SO pays medical
    insurance and dental insurance.  
    
    If you wish to take on the responsibility of being a custodial
    parent, you should also take on the fiscal responsibility of
    assuring the NCP that the money paid is used *to support the
    child* and the child's needs.  Food for the child, medical
    and dental care, clothing, toys and other needs.  Using the
    CS to pay the mortgage is kind of iffy in my book.  Dad has
    to supply a place to live as well and his expenses are not subsidized.
    
    The child has two parents and they should not be characterized
    as "the one who does all the work" and "the one who doesn't".  
    Child rearing is a joint effort.  CS is support for the child,
    not a zing for the spouse, not power you wield because you can.
    Visitation is as important as CS, if not more so.  Denial of
    visitation and/or alienation of affection should carry the
    same penalty as non-payment of child support.  
    
    Until all women realize that enough women abuse the system
    that the rest of us should be concerned about it, until
    women realize that true equality doesn't mean "we get ours
    cause the men got theirs", this situation won't get any better,
    and the ones who suffer will be the children.  
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    RE: .24  Mary-Michael

    > Well, I must be another one of those women blinded by my
    > anger about my SO's ex-wife.  
        
    Not at all, Mary-Michael.

    > He doesn't mind paying the money.  He doesn't mind paying
    > extra.  Heck, sometimes I come up with the extra, and we
    > aren't even married.  But we want to make sure it goes to
    > the child.  So far, it's gone to a new mini-van, landscaping,
    > a wedding, and a trip to Disneyworld.  My SO pays medical
    > insurance and dental insurance.  
      
    I certainly don't blame you for being frustrated, if this is
    what you believe is happening.

    On the other hand, as Cher said in the movie "Mask" about why
    she didn't take support from her ex, "If you take their money,
    you have to take their sh*t."

    I was glad to support my son on my own for the very reason that
    I didn't want to have to provide receipts to this guy when I bought
    a stick of gum for my son.  I was taking great care of him, and
    I knew it - almost everything we had was for him.  If I spent a
    small amount of money in some questionable way, I didn't want
    anyone yelling at me about every nickel and dime.
      
    > If you wish to take on the responsibility of being a custodial
    > parent, you should also take on the fiscal responsibility of
    > assuring the NCP that the money paid is used *to support the
    > child* and the child's needs.  Food for the child, medical
    > and dental care, clothing, toys and other needs.  Using the
    > CS to pay the mortgage is kind of iffy in my book.  Dad has
    > to supply a place to live as well and his expenses are not
    > subsidized.
      
    Again, I've never envied women who get child support because
    I wouldn't like the idea of someone counting the pennies in my
    house to make sure I didn't borrow from the child support (when
    needed to support us) then pay back by spending other money of
    my own on the child.  

    It's expensive to raise children.  It took almost everything
    I had to do it.  But no one hassled and judged me about it.
      
    > The child has two parents and they should not be characterized
    > as "the one who does all the work" and "the one who doesn't".  
        
    This sounds like a quote from an individual.  We have a lot of
    strange individuals in our species who say lots of strange things.

    > Child rearing is a joint effort.  CS is support for the child,
    > not a zing for the spouse, not power you wield because you can.

    The women I've known who got child support had to walk on eggs
    around them (knowing they could take a hike and leave them
    stranded any minute they chose to do so.)
      
    > Until all women realize that enough women abuse the system
    > that the rest of us should be concerned about it, 

    Until all people realize that women are killed every day for
    even *trying* to get divorces...

    > until women realize that true equality doesn't mean "we get ours
    > cause the men got theirs", 

    You may think this way, but I see it as just something that gets 
    thrown at women as an accusation.

    > this situation won't get any better, and the ones who suffer will 
    > be the children.  

    Stereotyping divorced women with children as being bad won't help.

    Men and women as groups are honest, hard-working parents.

    >you are blinded by anger about your husband ex-wife. Pure and simple. 
    
    There is nothing pure nor simple about my feelings about his ex. I
    really have no feeling about her in general, it's the way she puts the
    child second to her selfish needs and complains about it. All she sees
    her son as is a monetary implement. It might be hard for you to imagine
    that but it happens. 
    
    > Hello? What 'dubious distinction' are you talking about? I was (both
    legally and quite litterally) a single mother. What else was I supposed
    to call it to please you?
    
    I don't care what you call it but single mother makes you sound labled.
    You are a parent. Why give it a lable of single mother. Does it really
    matter if you are single or not? 
    I'm sorry about you being a parent without a partner, but you knew that
    it wasn't going to be easy before you had your kid. 
    
    >What????????? Since when is a 'single mom" the opposite of a "great
    mom"????This has never been the case in my experience.
    
    never said it was the OPPOSITE, just a more productive lable.
    
    >Your prejudices are showing big time.
    
    What prejudices are you refering to. That I see both sides of the fence
    and I can admit that there are some women who are scummy just like some
    men are scummy. 
    
    >sorry for not understanding that you can blast the hell out of women
    all you want, but women aren't allowed to blast back. Nice System. 
    
    So now woman can't blast back in defense of men? Is this what you're
    trying to say? So we are supposed to be united by our gender, not by
    our princpals. 
    
    >Have you seen me speak to my child about his father? Surely your
    aren't suggesting that my willingness to write a note is proof that I
    say these things to my son?
    
    I didn't say any of that, but I've heard it from my stepsons mouth.
    he's old enough to repeat what is said now, not like when he was
    smaller and he was just a scared confused little lamb not knowing the
    only person he trusted was dumping her anger out on him. 
    
    > I know how much you hate all this stuff as the second wife, but
    divorce is not a cake-walk for women, either. 
    
    Divorce isn't supposed to be a cake walk. I hate how the children are
    used as pawns to make a point. Most of the court systems are clogged up
    with over-zealous money hungry nasties(men and women) and taking up the
    time from the real issues that plague a messy divorce. Like what is
    best for the child and what is in the kids best future interest.
    
    >Divorced women struggle and "get by".
    
    yep, those are the people I know. the ones that just get on with
    things. My friend has three kids 7,4,1. She has no interest in doing
    anything but helping her soon to be ex have a good relationship with
    his sons and daughter. She just wants to get on with things. Sell the
    house so there is no questions, split the money, you do your thing,
    I'll go mine, just go away! that is not vindictive, she split the
    transportation, she split everything 50/50 with him. The kids are very
    well adjusted and there is no fighting. No argueing, no cursing and no
    nasty comments to clean up later. 
    
    >It's the tough part about being a second wife, I know. But you knew
    he'd been married before when you got involved with him
    
    So you've been a second wife? If you haven't, you have no idea what you
    are commenting on. We get involved with a divorced man for the same
    reasons that you would get involved with a single man, because! I got
    involved with him and she wasn't so bad, it's when we moved in together
    that she got scary. That was 2 yrs after their divorce. Then we got
    engaged and she lost her mind. When we got married and announce the
    pending arrival of the new brother or sister, she took a nose
    dive..it's been six years since they stopped living together as
    husband and wife. four since the divorce...this in my opinion is about
    the time that she should be getting over things..instead, she told me
    she was very overwhelmed with the marriage and pregnancy, she still
    addresses my husband as her husband. So tell me, should I be
    scared.
    >You don't understand why women get angry, though
    
    Where did I write that. I fully understand. And I think some women are
    far too good to some scum guys that take advantage of their good heart
    and possibly broken heart.
    
    >I've been to court, too. I've heard about how some men want to marry
    their second wives and leave their old lives behind. 
     
    i don't know what is implied here. My husband was won over lock stock
    and barrel long, long time after his divorce. I've seen in court what
    can be done. If you've been to court you've seen. Most men don't ever
    want to remarry. I'm sure there are a few guys in this file that will
    attest to that. Aside from the fact that there are also women, who
    automatically get custody and want to move on with thier new husbands
    and leave their old lives behind, right. Denying the father visitations
    or just moving so far away, that it makes it impossible for them to see
    their children, why try harder if the court system isn't working with
    you. 
    
    >I have none for you either. YOu  knew what you were getting into by
    marrying a man with an ex-wife and a child. 
     
    So because I married a man with an ex-wife and a child from a previous
    life, she should be less than adult and should get everything because
    she "was there first". right, that makes sense. NOT!  It kind of
    goes along with the part about you being a mother with out a partner it
    was your choice, so you shouldn't sound so bitter about it.
     
    I wasn't being nasty when I said I have no sympathy for you, I just
    didn't think your personality would accept it, but I see that's not 
    the situation.  
    
    I came to this note seeking the "other side" to the story, because I
    wasn't so easy on my husband in the beginning. I thought he wasn't
    helping enough, until i saw what he really was doing and that angered
    me. She denied him access to his child, and he being the guy he was,
    didn't fight it, he just tried to be nicer so she wouldn't get mad and
    would let him see his kid.....yeah, that lasted a very short time when
    i found out. So I came to this note hoping I could see a side that
    maybe someone else had experience..not to bash these guys that have
    real concerns and real issues regarding the well being of their
    children. Most of the guys in this note are nuturing and parental. This
    is obvious from some of the notes I read. 
    
    >I did what was best for my child. We went on with our lives and did
    well for ourselvs. 
    
    Too bad more couples can't address the situtation like this and move
    on.
    
    >I handled the situation, thank you. You haven't raised a child yet - I
    have. No need for your advice, but thanks anyway. 
    
    You KNOW that I haven't raised a child yet, then? You are currently in
    possession of my personal records that tells you this, correct?
    I won't touch this one any more. It makes me nasty. 
    
    I don't assume to give you any advise..I was stating what I thought
    some people should say to their children instead of telling them the
    gross adult truth that could hurt their egos. But if your internal gut
    felt I was addressing you....hey, not my problem. 
    
    >Your anger stood out more.
    (refering to why you didn't comment on the "there are men and woman
    that are both losers.)
    
    Don't understand your point. I've reiterated it several times. They
    come from both sides. But the children are the sufferers. 
    
    >This is your prejudice speaking. I don't consider the term "single
    mother " to be negative You do - so it's your problem.
    
    Well, actually it's a societal problem. Single mother gives off many
    different senarios that tell society many different things. Why give
    society a peek into your private life. Parents without partners tells
    them nothing. This is perferable to me because it doesn't label anyone,
    including the child. 
    
    There are also woman who WANT to be considered a single mother victum.
    This is hard for you to understand then you need to get out more. Not
    everyone is a heroine like you and not everyone can have the strength
    to survive like you. Just like there are legitamate women on welfare.
    Trying to get their lives together and then there are families that are
    third generation welfare stealers. 
    
    >YOU are allowed to show all YOUR anger in public, though. How
    convenient for you. Another person who gets to make the rules.
    
    This is just emotional yeach. I don't understand what talking trash
    about ones ex husband to their children and everyone he knows and what
    I talk about have to do with making rules. So sorry but I have an ex
    and I don't speak of him or for that matter want to think of him for
    any part of my day, but there are woman (and men) consumed with the
    obession of making the other persons lives miserable. 
    
    So you're telling me that I make the rules for...........????????
       
    >Countless stories tell of women who get killed because they dared to
    leave their husbands.
    
    We're not discussing spousal abuse. You're mixing up to different
    issues here. Spousal abuse happens. Believe me I KNOW. It is
    real and for some women, trapping. So don't get me going on that. I'm
    sure that we could have a very meaningful conversation about what to do
    with a man who abuses a woman. But this isn't the note for it.
    and I don't think that the policy would let me write what i think
    should happen to them. 
    
    >Don't use deviants as an EXCUSE to not take subjects seriously. It's
    not rocket science to treat the deviants differently than real victums. 
    
    I thought you said you've sat in court and heard some divorce
    proceedings. Well, apparently it is difficult and does take a rocket
    scientist to treat the deviants differently because we still have an
    unbalanced scale in court when it comes to custody and when it comes to
    the childs "best interest". Did you know it reverts to the mother most
    of the time. Did you also know that unless you can PROVE that the
    mother is a drug abuser, a child molester or murderer, the chances of
    a father gettting custody is very small. Did you know that a man can be
    ACCUSED of being a drug abuser, a child molester, a drunk and unfit
    parent and with no evidence to initally prove this, the child WILL be
    removed from the fathers visitations. We were told that even if she was
    a prostitute he still would have a hard time getting custody. The court
    told her that they would considered changing custody because she put
    the childs life in danger by smoking in the presents of the child..She
    was ordered to quit smoking. The father wouldn't have been given that
    order, he would have just recieved paper work that told him "you will
    be denied access of your child until futher notice". Most guys don't
    have the extra income to keep going back to court, most are paying
    exorbatant child support, so the woman wins. 
    
    >I've been reading the other notes in this conference (including
    yours), Your hostility is the reason for mine here. 
    
    
    I haven't noted in here for a while so it must have been that one note
    that you've read. 
    
    
    >>because you're a good mom. Some woman aren't!!!!!, that's all i'm
    >>saying. 
    
    >No, you made statements about women in general(how women with
    substantial incomes still let their children go without new
    clothes..etc)
    
    and YOU think that constitutes a GOOD MOM? Hello to you!
    
    >I'm just saying that mothers and fathers in general are honest,
    hard-working people
    
    
    agreed!!!!            yeah.......we finally agree..good because my
                          swollen fingers are very sore from all this 
    			  typing. 
    
    >I am sorry that you're so angry about your husband's ex-wife. It
    doesn't mean a thing about women in general, though. 
    
    It's not her that I'm angry about. I don't like the way she puts her
    needs above that of a child. It's her type of woman, maybe I see it
    more, because I'm exposed to it more But I DO know a lot of situations
    like mine that make my situation look mild, very mild. It makes it
    difficult for the new wife, because the husband is constantly under
    fire and (if you have an SO or a husband you know) it's very difficult
    to stand by and watch two people you love be chewed apart by a very
    selfish, self-centered and obsessive woman. I can handle my own, and
    have with her. I have no hidden anger, she gets it when she deals it.
    So I alliviate it immediately. This is so I'm not accused of being the
    one that turns my anger on the child. This she does very well. 
    
    
    So, that was a long and tiresome note. 
    
    ouch my hands hurt.
    
      
     
    
      

    RE: .26  

    > I don't care what you call it but single mother makes you sound labled.

    So you do want a more "politically correct" term.  "Pregnant woman"
    is a label, too.  Do you have a politically correct term for this, too?

    > You are a parent. Why give it a lable of single mother. Does it
    > really matter if you are single or not? 

    It matters if you're trying to describe that you're both a mother and
    happen to be single.  It's a matter of using an adjective with a noun.

    > I'm sorry about you being a parent without a partner, but you knew
    > that it wasn't going to be easy before you had your kid. 

    I never said I was still single.  I'm very happily married now,
    thank you very much.

    >> What????????? Since when is a 'single mom" the opposite of a
    >> "great mom"????This has never been the case in my experience.
        
    > never said it was the OPPOSITE, just a more productive lable.

    More productive for who?  Most people don't walk around using 
    adjectives to praise themselves on a daily basis.  They use 
    adjectives which describe their situation (if their situation 
    is under discussion.)

    >> Your prejudices are showing big time.
        
    > What prejudices are you refering to. That I see both sides of the
    > fence and I can admit that there are some women who are scummy just 
    > like some men are scummy. 

    No, your prejudices against 'single moms'.  For some unknown reason,
    you think badly of women who describe themselves this way (which is
    really bizarre on your part, in my opinion.)

    >> sorry for not understanding that you can blast the hell out of
    >> women all you want, but women aren't allowed to blast back. 
    >> Nice System. 
        
    > So now woman can't blast back in defense of men? Is this what
    > you're trying to say? So we are supposed to be united by our 
    > gender, not by our princpals. 

    You've been blasting the hell out of women for months in this file.
    Now YOU try to tell ME that single mothers shouldn't blast back.

    Blast all you want.  Don't fault others for blasting back, that's all.

    >> It's the tough part about being a second wife, I know. But you
    >> knew he'd been married before when you got involved with him
        
    > So you've been a second wife? If you haven't, you have no idea what
    > you are commenting on. 

    Your marriage is fairly recent.  You were complaining when you were 
    just his SO, and I *have* been down that road.

    > instead, she told me she was very overwhelmed with the marriage and 
    > pregnancy, she still addresses my husband as her husband. So tell me, 
    > should I be scared.

    You and your husband hate her and she knows it.  I'm sure she realizes
    that you trash her behind her back every chance you get.

    It's got to be emotionally tough on her, too, even if you think she
    should get over it.

    >> I have none for you either. You knew what you were getting into
    >> by marrying a man with an ex-wife and a child. 
         
    > So because I married a man with an ex-wife and a child from a
    > previous life, she should be less than adult and should get everything
    > because she "was there first". right, that makes sense. NOT!  

    When children are involved, divorced men and women never start their 
    lives over from scratch.  Surely you knew that.

    > It kind of goes along with the part about you being a mother with 
    > out a partner it was your choice, so you shouldn't sound so bitter 
    > about it.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.  I never said I was single
    by choice - I said I asked for no child support (by choice.)  And I've
    repeatedly stated that I was happy about my choice.

    You shouldn't be so doggone bitter about marrying a guy with a kid.
    You knew what you were doing there (and you did have a choice about
    it.)

    > Well, actually it's a societal problem. Single mother gives off
    > many different senarios that tell society many different things. 
    > Why give society a peek into your private life. Parents without 
    > partners tells them nothing. This is perferable to me because 
    > it doesn't label anyone, including the child. 

    'Single mother' MEANS 'parent without a partner'.  Duh.  

    Your prejudices against single mothers are giving you some weird
    notion that it means one specific situation.  Widowed women are
    called 'single parents' (or 'single mothers') along with divorced
    women.  You have a problem with this, but again, it's your problem. 

    > There are also woman who WANT to be considered a single mother
    > victum. This is hard for you to understand then you need to get 
    > out more.  

    You see yourself as a victim without using this term.

    > Not everyone is a heroine like you and not everyone can have the
    > strength to survive like you. Just like there are legitamate women on
    > welfare.  Trying to get their lives together and then there are 
    > families that are third generation welfare stealers. 

    You really do like to label people, don't you.

    >> YOU are allowed to show all YOUR anger in public, though. How
    >> convenient for you. Another person who gets to make the rules.
        
    > This is just emotional yeach. I don't understand what talking trash
    > about ones ex husband to their children and everyone he knows and
    > what I talk about have to do with making rules. 

    You say that single moms shouldn't complain in public, yet you do
    this yourself.  You have different rules for others than you follow,
    that's all.

    >> Don't use deviants as an EXCUSE to not take subjects seriously.
    >> It's not rocket science to treat the deviants differently than real
    >> victims. 
        
    > I thought you said you've sat in court and heard some divorce
    > proceedings. Well, apparently it is difficult and does take a
    > rocket scientist to treat the deviants differently because we 
    > still have an unbalanced scale in court when it comes to custody 
    > and when it comes to the childs "best interest". 

    Do you realize that all it takes to get a child taken away from its
    mother is to call social services and claim you've seen abuse?

    Anyone can call and make the claim with anonymity.  

    >>> because you're a good mom. Some woman aren't!!!!!, that's all i'm
    >>> saying. 
        
    >> No, you made statements about women in general (how women with
    >> substantial incomes still let their children go without new
    >> clothes..etc)
        
    > and YOU think that constitutes a GOOD MOM? Hello to you!

    No, it means that YOU'RE stereotyping women in general for the actions
    of individuals (which you'd have understood if you'd read my statement
    a bit more carefully.)

    
    re .25
    
    > On the other hand, as Cher said in the movie "Mask" about why
>    she didn't take support from her ex, "If you take their money,
>    you have to take their sh*t."
    
    Which brings up another problem I have with CP's who will deprive
    the child of their right of support by the NCP in order to justify
    depriving the child of their right to know their other parent.
    
    I've seen many women who will try to hide the father (from
    Social Services) from paying child support because they don't want 
    to have to have to deal with visitation by the father.  THIS IS
    A VIOLATION OF THE _CHILD'S_ RIGHTS (yes I am screaming).
    
    fred();

    Some guys simply won't spend time with their kids, no matter how
    easy you make it for them (and how little or no support you ask
    from them.)
    
    They just don't want to be involved.
    

    
>    Some guys simply won't spend time with their kids, no matter how
>    easy you make it for them (and how little or no support you ask
>    from them.)
>    
>    They just don't want to be involved.
    
    The "feminists" have been telling men for years that men are not
    a necessary part of the family (just keep those child support checks
    coming),  and a lot of men have believed it.

    fred();

    ::CONLON
    
    It is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes
    to being on my side of the fence. I have used terms that "I" feel I
    would want used if I were in another situation. Of course a widow
    woman with a child is a single mother...duh! yeah so why isn't she a
    "parent with out a partner". There are classes at our HMO..."parents
    without partners" Did you think "I" Made that up susan? 
    Come on who are you kidding. I'm not labling anyone. 
    If you're single and your choice was to not accept anything from the 
    father, then so be it. I think I would do the same, but I'm sure for
    different reasons. But you bash men like ALL of them are terrible...
    Doesn't it feel right when a woman stands up and screams   "enough", in
    defense of men that really do have real issues. 
    
    addressing is ex: Neither one of us hate her....that is far to intense
    of an emotion for me to have for her. I could care less about her
    actually and he could care even less than me. If you knew our history,
    I was the one who wanted to call a truce and find out what her problem
    was 4 years ago, because I was getting bashed from the very beginning.
    I had never met her and thought it might be a good idea. But alas, she
    was a jealous, vindictive, obsessed person with an agenda that I didn't
    understand. I've turned my cheek for the last time. I will fight back
    now. I do now what her agenda is and no, I don't like that it involves 
    a child. 
    
    about calling dss. WRONG.If it was THAT easy it would be being done often 
    and custody would be changing often, and children wouldn't be dieing in the 
    hands of some of there mothers. Dss calls and "schedules" an appointment 
    with the mother. She is forwarned that someone is going to come in and 
    check on her and her kid..anonomous or not. 
    
    She is told the complaint, given the benefit of the doubt and the
    child will remain in her custody until further complaints bring about a
    court appearance. Now, if you're anonomously calling, I guess no one
    will be showing up in court now will they, to verify what they have
    seen or what they have heard.  If you constantly call DSS
    and identify yourself as the NCP, you can be hauled into court for
    harrassment, because before each and every visit to the house, the
    mother is called and an appointment is scheduled. If her ability to
    think isn't impaired, she will rectify her issues before dss arrives. 
    
    A NCP sometimes doesn't even know the police are coming to get the
    child and the child is wisked away. Pose this question to some of the
    men in the notes file...it's happened to them. 
    
    ABout my recent marriage...I've been living with him for almost 3 yrs
    before that marriage ever took place...the only difference now...I
    changed my last name to his, it was a few letters shorter. So the proof
    is in the pudding, nothing is different just because we are married..if
    anything, it's a lot less stressful in our home. Our committment was
    made. And please don't assume anything about my marriage. I'm not at
    all unhappy about the arrangement. I have the benefit of the love of a
    great man and a wonderful child. I have no complaints about either. But
    I think that 6 years is far too long to carry a torch and or a
    vendetta.
    
    But I *knew* gettting into a heated arguement of something you once
    again think you "know everything about" was going to get stupid and
    ludicrous. 
    
    You have no ability to have dialog without arguement. You see
    women as victums of society. I see them as working members that should
    not only be treated equally, but punished as such also. So when you go
    bashing men for issues that you have NEVER been in touch with, I tend
    to re-evaluate your ability to be credible and bias. 
    
    
    OH yeah, for the record Susan, Single mothering is a very honorable
    job, as is single fathering, yet men don't get that opportunity as
    often as they should, nor are they considered unless there are extreem
    circumstances and lots of money, which isn't part of a divorced mans
    life that is paying large amounts in child support. 
    it's woman like you that go to court see nothing but hateful men trying
    to take what little society gives women. Bull poopy. They should all be
    considered equal.  
     
    I will next unseen past your replies, nothing in my notes deems a reply
    necessary to you. Having a useless argument with you over something you
    now nothing about is futile and frustrating, but continue to blow hot
    air if you must. This is the forum for it!
    
    this is all in my most honest opinion of course.
    
    
     

    re: .25
    
    I agree that it's crappy to have someone peering at your
    finances, no one likes applying for a mortgage or public
    assistance either.  However, consider this:  when two parents
    live together and raise their children, they make monetary
    decisions together, they KNOW how the money is being used.
    When you have a divorce, typically the NCP is left in the dark
    about even major monetary issues (honestly - most of the pain
    in being a NCP is being left out of the little stuff - not being
    told about parents' nights, school plays, dance recitals, 
    report cards, summer camp, etc. - feeling like you are a visitor
    in your children's lives - you can't really know what that's
    like until you've been an NCP), and yet that person is required
    by law to supply money for them.  You know how frustrating is
    it at a low level to see your tax dollars wasted in programs
    you have no say over.  When you're an NCP you see money you
    feel is being wasted, but you have no opportunity to even discuss
    the situation with the CP without heat being generated.  
    
    Now if you want to talk to me about being "the second woman",
    oh the stories I could tell you :-)  We see divorce issues from
    the father's point of view with a good deal of clarity.  We
    get to review the entire divorce when we show up, we are gifted
    with their children's distrust and hatred (all transferred neatly
    from the divorce process) initially and sometimes forever, and
    our opinions, regardless of their validity, are almost always
    chocked up to "jealousy".  Why we should be jealous of a failed
    marriage, I have no clue.  Besides, I have a failed marriage of
    my own, I don't need to worry about anyone else's :-).  I don't
    doubt this is also true of "the second man".  There are problems
    in the system, of that I am positive.  Fathers *and* mothers 
    need to raise their children together, regardless of how they
    feel about each other.  Depriving a child of the love of a parent
    because YOU are angry or YOU have made a judgement that they
    are not "worthy" or "committed" enough isn't fair.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    

Alimony does still happen, all the  time.  Go sit in family
court for a day and you'll no doubt see it.  In some states,
permanent alimony is mandated if the marriage lasted more than,
say, 20 years....

I paid alimony for three years.  Hey, at least it was a tax
deduction. ;-)

Some jurisdictions will 'convert' alimony to child support
if the terms of the agreement/decree appear to be actually
intended as support rather than rehabilitative (that's the
legal term for much of alimony, not mine).  This is usually
when child support is 'called' alimony for the sake of getting
the tax break.

During my custody hearing last summer, an elderly couple
appeared before the judge, and in the course of the hearing
a substantial alimony payment was mentioned.  They had some
serious bucks, and she was getting a big piece of it,
including alimony.  Permanent alimony.

tim

    RE: .30  Fred
    
    > The "feminists" have been telling men for years that men are not
    > a necessary part of the family (just keep those child support checks
    > coming),  and a lot of men have believed it.
    
    So much for personal responsibility, eh?  :>
    

    RE: .31  

    You definitely had your blinders on when you wrote your note.

    > It is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about when it
    > comes to being on my side of the fence. I have used terms that 
    > "I" feel I would want used if I were in another situation. 

    You aren't *IN* those situations, though, so all you can do is to
    criticize those who *are* in those situations as if you know what
    you're talking about.  You don't.

    > Of course a widow woman with a child is a single mother...duh! 
    > yeah so why isn't she a "parent with out a partner". There are 
    > classes at our HMO..."parents without partners" Did you think 
    > "I" Made that up Suzanne? 
     
    You're the one criticizing people for choosing THEIR OWN TERMS to
    describe THEMSELVES, not me.  "Parents without partners" is fine
    - I've never said otherwise. 

    Where the heck do you get off telling people that they shouldn't
    call THEMSELVES "single Moms", though?   

    > Come on who are you kidding. I'm not labling anyone. 

    Sure you are.  You judge people for using a term that means precisely
    the same as the term you'd rather they used.  How pointless.

    > If you're single and your choice was to not accept anything from the 
    > father, then so be it. 

    You're making assumptions again.  My choice was not to ASK for anything
    from the father.  If he'd offered, I might have accepted.  He didn't.

    > I think I would do the same, but I'm sure for different reasons. But 
    > you bash men like ALL of them are terrible...

    You bash single moms like all of them are terrible.  I'm just fighting
    back.

    > Doesn't it feel right when a woman stands up and screams "enough", 
    > in defense of men that really do have real issues. 

    Doesn't it feel right to YOU when women and men stand up and scream
    'Enough!' in defense of single mothers that really do have issues?

    > addressing is ex: Neither one of us hate her....that is far to
    > intense of an emotion for me to have for her. I could care less 
    > about her actually and he could care even less than me. 

    You've complained about her so much in this file that I feel like
    *I* know her.  You guys hate her.

    > .. But alas, she was a jealous, vindictive, obsessed person with 
    > an agenda that I didn't understand. I've turned my cheek for the 
    > last time. I will fight back now. 

    See what I mean?  You hate her (whatever you want to call it.)

    > You have no ability to have dialog without arguement. You see
    > women as victums of society. 

    You see yourself as a victim, though.  Interesting, eh?

    > I see them as working members that should not only be treated equally, 
    > but punished as such also. So when you go bashing men for issues that 
    > you have NEVER been in touch with, 

    You bash single moms without EVER having been one.  Why do think that's
    ok for you to do?

    > I tend to re-evaluate your ability to be credible and bias. 

    Ditto.  You bash single moms for even CALLING themselves single moms.
    What credibility do you have?  You definitely have bias.

    > it's woman like you that go to court see nothing but hateful men trying
    > to take what little society gives women. Bull poopy. They should all be
    > considered equal.  

    Women like me get educations and become breadwinners ourselves without
    even GOING to court to ask men for money.  We walk the walk ourselves
    with responsibility while doing everything possible to allow the fathers
    of our children to have the best possible place in their lives.

    You've never done this yourself, though, so what would you know about it.
    Absolutely NOTHING.

    > I will next unseen past your replies, nothing in my notes deems a
    > reply necessary to you. Having a useless argument with you over 
    > something you now nothing about is futile and frustrating, but 
    > continue to blow hot air if you must. This is the forum for it!
        
    Ditto.  If you blow the air, I will cite your for it, though.

    > this is all in my most honest opinion of course.

    Your honestly hostile opinion.  :>  No problem.

    
    
    Can SOMEBODY tell men the difference in a man who won't work and
    pay child support and a "single mom" who won't work and do _her_
    share to support _her_ hids.  (Seems like the only time they are
    _his_ kids is when it comes time to write support check).
    
    The we get to the moms (single or not) who actually rob their own
    children of the support money's paid by the father.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .36  Fred

    > Can SOMEBODY tell men the difference in a man who won't work and
    > pay child support and a "single mom" who won't work and do _her_
    > share to support _her_ hids.  (Seems like the only time they are
    > _his_ kids is when it comes time to write support check).
      
    What about married women who won't work and do their share to support
    their kids (as in, mothers who are full-time homemakers?)
     
    Our society often tells married women that they're selfish for wanting 
    to work outside the home when they have kids, then the same society
    tells divorced/widowed/single women that they're selfish for NOT
    wanting to work outside the home when they have kids.
      
    > The we get to the moms (single or not) who actually rob their own
    > children of the support money's paid by the father.

    Most single moms struggle to make ends meet while they get trashed
    in our society.

    

>    Our society often tells married women that they're selfish for wanting 
>    to work outside the home when they have kids, then the same society

    That's nothing compared to what they call a man who _is_ married and
    _won't_ work.  Or a man who is not married and won't work for that
    matter.

    You might want to get yourself one of them CD contraptions.  The 
    needles don't stick on them.

    fred();

    RE: .38  Fred

    >> Our society often tells married women that they're selfish for
    >> wanting to work outside the home when they have kids, then the 
    >> same society tells divorced/widowed/single women that they're
    >> selfish for NOT wanting to work outside the home when they have 
    >> kids.

    > That's nothing compared to what they call a man who _is_ married
    > and _won't_ work.  Or a man who is not married and won't work for 
    > that matter.

    Duh.  My statement was about giving MIXED (OPPOSITE) MESSAGES to
    women, not about the consistent messages given to men.

    > You might want to get yourself one of them CD contraptions.  The 
    > needles don't stick on them.

    Take your own advice, pal.

    

>    Duh.  My statement was about giving MIXED (OPPOSITE) MESSAGES to
>    women, not about the consistent messages given to men.

    And what you are conventiently ignoring is the double standard
    applied to women and men.

    fred();

    RE: .40  Fred

    >> Duh.  My statement was about giving MIXED (OPPOSITE) MESSAGES to
    >> women, not about the consistent messages given to men.

    > And what you are conventiently ignoring is the double standard
    > applied to women and men.

    BOTH men and women get trounced badly for not doing what society
    wants us all to do (when it comes to working or not working.)

    Women get trounced just as badly for trying to do the same thing
    in more than one situation.

    A woman can be considered a hero for staying home with her children
    while they're young, but if her husband suddenly dies, she's selfish
    and lazy if she doesn't do precisely the opposite.

    
>    BOTH men and women get trounced badly for not doing what society
>    wants us all to do (when it comes to working or not working.)

    Then the argument you seem to be trying to make must be totally
    unrelated to the original argument.
    
    fred();

    
    My argument is related to the current discussion.
    

    
    	Some folks just never learn how to play nice.

    
    It's just a rough playground in here, that's all.  :>