Child Support, Marriage, Relationships, Society

Permanent Maintenance?

by  •  • 0 Comments

This sums up everything. Permanent maintenance makes absolutely NO sense in our modern society. NONE!

I don’t live in NJ, but I know the terror of “spousal maintenance” and how it can destroy lives. My ex wife became a professional alimony collector at the age of 32, at my expense. How is it that a 32 year old women can get “support”, but when a child turns 18 he is considered too mature to receive child support. How is an 18 year old kid more mature than a 32 year old woman? The other issue is that fault-based divorce needs to be brought back. I don’t understand how a person can cheat on you, then expect to get paid for it.

“New Jersey alimony laws are unfair to everyone, women and men alike. Although New Jersey Alimony Reform sympathizes with the frustrations expressed by fathers rights bloggers, we are emphatic that the problem with alimony laws is not about gender, it is about fairness. The current laws are unfair to both women and men.”

“New Jersey Alimony Reform is an organization of women and men who serve as an educational resource to legislators and the public, pointing out the problems, and suggesting ways to restore basic fairness to NJ alimony laws.”

read more here: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/nj_divorce_debate_opinions.html

Family, Fatherhood

Home with dada

by  •  • 0 Comments

I think this is great. I would love to do the same thing, but compile footage of my nine years of being at home with my kids.

These kinds of moments don’t last for long. Enjoy them while they are young. We all lose our kids during their teenage years. It might be wise to think about the choices we make while our children are young enough to still want to be with us. I sure am enjoying every minute with my kids right now.

The tired phrase, “I want to spend time with my family” is weak and spineless. Usually, people say this when they are caught doing something wrong, or after years of neglecting their kids working hard to chase a dollar. Now that they have retired or have been shamed into quitting, they want to make raising their children a priority. Most of the time it is too late. Your kids are off to college and are already lost.

No, we can’t have it all. Having it all comes with some major sacrifice. I choose to be with my kids now and sacrifice other things that are truly not as important.

Family is the number one priority for me.

THIS is fatherhood:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RntoTUPuWMc&w=560&h=315]

Fatherhood, Marriage, Society

When is a sperm donor a father?

by  •  • 3 Comments

After putting an ad on Craigslit, an agreement was made between Jennifer Schreiner, Angela Bauer and William Marotta. William was to be the sperm donor but to not have any parental rights. The  couple chooses to have the child with William.  Before they made this arrangement, the couple had  8 children though adoption and the foster care system. The couple eventually splits and now Jennifer has fallen on hard times. She asks the state for financial help with raising the children who are living with her. The state presses the Jennifer for information on who the father is. She caves, and gives up the sperm donor’s information. Because Jennifer is the 3-year-old’s sole parent under Kansas law, which does not recognize same-sex unions, the state cannot seek child support from Angela. The state has to chase down William even though he signed a legitimate contract.  The state intervenes in the private contract, and sues the sperm donor for damages and asks for child support. Parents one and two don’t matter when it comes to child support in this state – only the man who gave his sperm.

What does this say about adoption, same sex unions who adopt, being a sole provider (better known as a single parent), couples who sign private contracts for sperm donation, and sperm donation in general?

It seems that it is mighty convenient to be female in this case. I guess you can by-pass your responsibility and just walk away from your child support obligations when it is convenient. When is that ever the case if you are a man? Isn’t the ex a deadbeat mom? Why did Jennifer give up the information about William and put him in this position? It is easy to abdicate all responsibility when times get rough isn’t it?

article-2255241-16B3F735000005DC-186_634x592

United: Ms Bauer and Ms Schreiner celebrating their same-sex union.
 

….The agreement also called for Bauer and Schreiner to hold Marotta harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private, including any district attorney’s office or other state or county agency, regardless of the circumstances or said demand…..”

….On Oct. 3, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner’s child and owes a duty to support her. It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012 and had paid medical expenses totaling nearly $6,000…

The man’s attorney stated ….“My understanding is that after being pressed on paternity of the child, she gave them William’s name as a sperm donor. The state then filed this suit to determine paternity,” 

Think about what is going on. Does it make any sense? Maybe from the state’s perspective it does. SOMEONE has to pay for these kids right? The couple is no longer together and the custodial parent asked the state to help out with necessary expenses. The state says ok, they will pay for child care expenses, but only for a while. They need to find the father of the child and make him pay. By law, they have to disregard the partner of the mother altogether.

Child support was initially invented in an attempt to get father to pay for the expenses of raising their children instead of the state. Decades ago when many women were not in the workforce in the numbers they currently are it made sense to make a father pay for the care of their children a certain degree. Decades ago, women did not work in the numbers they do now. Today, women make up the majority of the workforce. Why are we still in that same mindset? Times have changed. Child support needs to change right along with it. The laws of each state might want to address same sex couples and include the terms parents in the language instead of father. Both parents need to be responsible and held to the same standard.

This case also involves Kansas state law with regard to who is considered a sperm donor and who isn’t. There is case law dealing with instances of insemination with and without state licensed facilities. In 2007 when a man decided to peruse parental rights after he had been a sperm donor, he was denied, but when a woman chooses to peruse financial aid (child support), the state things it is ok for him to be a ‘father’ then. Being a father in this case means open wallet. It makes little sense to me.

article-2255241-16B5057A000005DC-967_634x396

Schroller , the man’s attorney, argued that the case was consistent with a 2007 case in which the Kansas Supreme Court denied parental rights to a man who sought them after providing a sperm donation under similar circumstances. A licensed physician performed the insemination in the 2007 case.

Still, Schroller wrote that Marotta took the same actions as the man in the 2007 case did, and he — like that man — should be considered a sperm donor, not a father.

She stressed that sperm banks regularly ship sperm donations for the intended purpose of artificial insemination within the United States and abroad to both residential and medical facility addresses.

Schroller argued in court documents that if a donor is free of parental responsibility only when a doctor performs an insemination, “then any woman in Kansas could have sperm donations shipped to her house, inseminate herself without a licensed physician and seek out the donor for financial support because her actions made him a father, not a sperm donor. This goes against the very purpose of the statute to protect sperm donors as well as birth mothers.”

Complex, but the overall concept is that the father is considered financially responsible in this case even though the ex ‘wife’ is still alive and kicking.

Why do people still think the father is financially responsible for the creation that occurs from the union of his sperm and a woman’s egg? Yes, it is state law in Kansas, but it appears that we have this mindset in every state. It seems that a child is only financially tied to the father, but not the mother.

What is the mother’s financial responsibility in this case or any other case of child support? Have you ever asked that question when child support is rewarded? Why are child support recipients not accountable for how the money is spent? Why are they not accountable for their own proportional share when child support fines are handed out in family court. I asked those questions years ago, and when I thought about it, I chose to follow a different path. I hope all men in the future start thinking about what is really going on in our society. It’s time we put an end to old cultural norms and start making all segments of our society hold up their end of the bargain. Two people create children and both should be equally financially responsible.

This system that was set up years ago has outlived it’s usefulness. It allows the state to intervene in contracts that are between two parties and assesses punitive damages to men simply due to their anatomy. Child support, and they many agencies that exist to support its current form need to be completely dismantled and reformed to reflect life in modern society.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/29/3986152/state-pursuing-child-support-from.html#storylink=cpy

Relationships, Society

Are Feminists and Chivalry Natural Enemies?

by  •  • 0 Comments

smith_chivalry2_post

Being a heterosexual man in the new millennium can be quite confusing. We understand that most women want ‘equality’, yet at times they want to be treated like a queen. Some say they want equality and don’t need a man or their money, yet there are customs from decades past that still linger.  Why are chivalry and modern feminism  natural enemies? Is it true that if women want to be treated as equals they can’t also want men to open doors for them or always pick up the check. Is helping a woman carry heavy a luggage bag offensive? Is he implying that she’s too weak to do it herself? Can a man open the door for a his girlfriend or wife, or even defend her during a physical confrontation? Are we allowed to do these things anymore without being mislabeled a sexist, misogynist, filthy pig?

Something is not right. What is a good man to do?

Emily Esfahani Smith writes – After the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, which insisted on the equal treatment of women in all domains of life, feminists dismissed chivalry as sexist. They still do. A new study, published in the feminist journal Psychology of Women Quarterly, questions the entire enterprise of male chivalry, which, in an Orwellian flourish, it calls “benevolent sexism.”

Chivalrous behavior is benevolent because it flatters women and leads to their preferential treatment. But it is sexist because it relies on the “gendered premise” that women are weak and in need of protection while men are strong. “Benevolent sexism,” Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker of the University of Florida write in the study, “is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality.” They advocate interventions to reduce its prevalence, even though, they found, chivalry is associated with greater life satisfaction and the sense that the world is fair, well-ordered, and a good place.

If feminists are stuck in an era long past and still think that men and women are not different, It might be wise to move on and no longer deal with those types of people. It is time we enjoy our differences. I feel one of the many lingering effects of the radical modern feminist movement is that hey are leading many of our young women astray. It is not only confusing for men, but it is really confusing young women. Are we truly equal? Do we want true equality everywhere and what does it really mean?

Satoshi Kanazawa wrote in The Scientific Fundamentalist First, modern feminism is illogical because it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical. An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different.  Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature – that men and women are and should be identical – is doomed.

It is interesting how some modern feminists are struggling with defining what equality really means. It seems like the coupling of equality and gender may indicate a paradox, if not an oxymoron. Is the question truly equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? Feminist movements fought long and difficult battles to obtain rights to education, reproductive freedom, employment, and protection under the law. Some may say those rights are about ‘equality.’ As we extend equality to previously excluded groups and attempt to ensure a commitment to gender neutrality, the contradictions and limits of equality become more conspicuous. As a result, the meaning of equality with regard to gender is increasingly more complex and becoming bitterly contested. There aren’t many feminists knocking down the doors for equality in selective service registration, eliminating permanent alimony in divorce proceedings or reducing gender bias in child custody cases where women are advantaged by courts. In those aspects, it seems as if they seem to accept differences. Where are the boundaries and limits?

Men and women complement each other. I think chivalry is a form of respect and acknowledgement of our differences.  Some people might want to discard stereotypical behaviors of the past like chivalry. That is fine if you want to live that way. I feel it’s about having choice – even if you chose what some people call ‘tradition.’

photo

Here is an example of a traditional chivalrous act. In a recent article in the Atlantic, Emily Esfahani Smith writes: A story from the life of Samuel Proctor (d. 1997) comes to mind here. Proctor was the beloved pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church. Apparently, he was in the elevator one day when a young woman came in. Proctor tipped his hat at her. She was offended and said, “What is that supposed to mean?”

The pastor’s response was: “Madame, by tipping my hat I was telling you several things. That I would not harm you in any way. That if someone came into this elevator and threatened you, I would defend you. That if you fell ill, I would tend to you and if necessary carry you to safety. I was telling you that even though I am a man and physically stronger than you, I will treat you with both respect and solicitude. But frankly, Madame, it would have taken too much time to tell you all of that; so, instead, I just tipped my hat.”

Ladies, if you need a man to explain what tipping a hat is supposed to men, you have REAL problems. You might be stuck in 1970’s feminist theory and might want to think about what decade you are living in. Times have changed. I feel it is perfectly fine for a man to treat a woman like a…..lady.

Real men want to treat their women with respect, dignity and care. If you don’t allow us to, we will find a woman that accepts it. It’s not worth the aggravation and struggle just to be a man. There is no need to apologize for doing what good men do on a regular basis.

Let us be MEN. Men and women are simply not the same. I fail to see why we just can’t enjoy our differences.

I remember one time at a playground a few years back when I was playing with my son. I had the chance to speak with a nanny for a while who was from Guyana about the differences in our cultures. She told me that modern American women have real problems. I asked her what that meant. She told me, “American women need to know their place!” I said, “Whoa! Wait a minute…what do you mean by that?” She told me “They need to understand that they are not men.”

read more HERE:

Society

Opposing Views – the protest of Dr. Warren Farrell

by  •  • 4 Comments

“Education is best served when the whole range of ideas are presented to the person and the individual is allowed to make up his or her own mind, and that individual is given the tools with which to make that decision – in other words, an ideal educational situation would give a student the criteria by which to judge……and then that student or that adult need never fear exposure to any idea because that person will be able to sort the data out” – Frank Zappa

What is going on with modern feminism? Do they think it is still 1972? Do modern feminists still think that men are pigs, men are evil, men are responsible for all that is bad in the world? If so, this has to be challenged. I feel radical  gender feminism makes those who began the second wave of feminism and those who still who advocate real change look really bad. Radicals in every political movement need to be checked and balanced. Feminists are not immune from a good checking and balancing. If you look at cultural movements like the TEA party and the Occupy movements, they made conservatives and liberals look crazier than they really are. Is this happening to feminism?

Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers see the changes in the feminist movement and have been outspoken critics. However, when a man speaks out, we are seen as instant misogynists. Most people don’t even understand what that word actually means. The act of speaking out and challenging women does not mean we hate women. I am the kind of man who likes an open dialogue so that we all can learn from each other. Being challenged intellectually does not mean that I hate you, I just might disagree. It is great when we can come to some common ground, but there might be times when I just flat out disagree. We can still get along. Where radicals go wrong is their inability to listen and exchange ideas.  What radical feminists are doing today is just that. Not willing to hear anything that challenges their worldview. I feel what they are doing is destroying all of the work that feminists have achieved over the past 40 years.

A few weeks ago, there was an incident that exposed elements of this movement.

Radical feminists blocked students at the University of Toronto from hearing an on-campus speaker named Warren Farrell, bestselling author of The Myth of Male Power.

The first video shows protesters not allowing people in to see the speaker disseminate vital information that will help both men AND women in the long run. What they attempted to do was engage in a technique called  priming. Priming is a known psychological control technique. With subtle hints of words or concepts, priming can trigger impressive changes in behavior. Priming is concerned with perceptual identification of words and objects. It refers to activating particular representations or associations in memory just before carrying out an action or task.

Use of certain words and phrases in this case was a clear attempt at priming They also used their bodies to block the entrance. It is disturbing to see the words ‘rape apologist’ and ‘hate speech’ thrown around before anyone has even had a chance to hear someone speak. Where do the protesters get this stuff from? Did they expect to see a speech from Todd Akin and Richard Murdock?

Blogger Joshua Kennon wrote :These protestors just assured that several mental models are going to kick in that will ultimately help Warren Farrell.  The forbidden fruit mental model, which causes people to want to know about and have access to what others are trying to keep them from discovering or enjoying, is powerful.  The mere association mental model are going to result in people who were trying to attend the lecture out of curiosity ascribing a range of violent, hateful, anti-intellectual traits to feminism in general, much to the movement’s detriment.  The reciprocity mental model means that some people may take actions against these protestors, perhaps even covertly, to undermine their cause as retaliation for the abuse they dished out to innocent passers-by.  

It’s a self-defeating way to behave.

Are these modern feminists? When someone says they are feminist, is this who they want to say represents who they are?

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0&w=560&h=315]

Joshua Kennon sums things up so well on his amazing blog:

What Warren Farrell Was Discussing

This is besides the point of the post but as an addendum, many of you are going to be curious as to what the controversy entailed.  The thesis of Warren Farrell’s speech was that men in the developed world, particularly the United States and Canada, are facing an unprecedented crisis in five key areas: education, jobs, emotional health, physical health, and fatherlessness.  He points out several facts that should come as no surprise to those who keep up with the economic posts on this site and elsewhere:

  • For the first time in history, our sons and brothers in the United States will have less education than their fathers.
  • The current societal hierarchy ignores the mental health of boys as evidenced by the fact that the suicide risk for boys and girls are the same up through 10 years old.  After that, when men begin being indoctrinated into the societal roles that are expected of them, suicide risk climbs 2x relative to girls between 11 and 14, 4x relative to girls between 15 and 19, and a staggering 5-6x girls between 20 and 24 years old.
  • Addiction to media, including video games and other interactive content driven by the information revolution, is disproportionately hurting men.  Men in general spend 3x the hours per week engrossed in these types of activities compared to women.
  • For every 1 girl who drops out of high school in Canada, there are 2 boys who do the same.
  • The reading and writing scores of boys throughout Canada are significantly below those of similarly situated girls.
  • Unemployment rates are significantly higher for men than they are for women, especially African American men.
  • This is causing a rise in extended adolescence as a coping mechanism for the failure of society’s institutions to address the emotional needs of boys.  This extended adolescence ultimately hurts women.
  • College graduation rates for boys are falling relative to girls.  This has terrible economic consequences.

Farrell’s argument appears to be based on the idea that modern society indoctrinates young boys into thinking they are disposable.  For example: Boys are taught their feelings don’t matter and to hide them (don’t cry); that when conflict arises, their lives don’t matter (drafting only men into war instead of both genders, like you see in many modern armies such as Israel); that their success is determined not by how much they love their work or feel fulfilled but by the total amount of cash they can bring home for their spouse and children to spend; that certain fields are unacceptable based on their gender (certain middle schools not requiring boys to take home economics, which includes baking, sewing, and household budgeting); that they are all potential rapists; that they are all violent by nature; that they are not given equal consideration for joint custody of children and alimony in the event of a divorce; that their natural hobbies and interests (golf or boating) are a waste of time; etc.

 Farrell goes on to talk about the dangerous jobs men face.  ”Every day, almost as many men are killed at work as were killed during the average day in Vietnam. For men, there are, in essence, three male-only drafts: the draft of men to all the wars; the draft of Everyman to unpaid bodyguard; the draft of men to all the hazardous jobs—or ‘death professions.”  Most women don’t allow their little girls to dream of fighting fires or becoming a police officers; yet, they encourage the same behavior in their boys.

Farrell talks about the role of evolutionary biology – that all of this made sense prior to World War II when the focus of life was survival.  Now, with the abundance of material goods and long life spans, we have shifted so that marriages, careers, hobbies, and friendships should be about self-actualization yet boys are socialized and educated in a way that strips them of that power.

Now tell me, is that something that should be banned? Is that hate speech? Is that misogynistic? Is that an apology for rapists?

I’ve had it with radical feminists. It is time to push back on some of this blind rage. What they are doing is counterproductive.

THIS is what the radical feminists were trying to bar people from hearing. It is long, but worth every minute:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4&w=560&h=315]

Divorce

Anger Management In Family Court

by  •  • 1 Comment

NEVER go into a courtroom without an attorney. NEVER. I did it once and learned my lesson.

NEVER GO INTO A COURTROOM ANYWHERE WITHOUT A REPRESENTATIVE.

NEVER!!!!!!!!

OK, I’m glad I got that out of the way.

I say this because the video I posted below will hopefully deter anyone reading this from ever setting foot in a courtroom without one.

Always have a stash of money saved up for when you get falsely accused of something. It will probably happen to you whether you like it or not. It could be a co-worker, a former lover/girlfriend/boyfriend. It could be your future ex-wife. It could be a police officer looking to jam you up or something crazy like that. Always have money for a lawyer. Even if you have to put the charges on a credit card, it will be worth it. If you don’t, judges and magistrates will treat you like a runaway slave. They really don’t care about you, or anything that has to do with the truth much of the time. Especially in family court. I have already written about how horrible family court is hereon my blog, but I’m going to give you a little taste of just how bad it REALLY is.

So, you haven’t seen the inside of a court room in family court YET. Hmmm. Let’s go inside the halls of justice and see how they run thangs down there.

Family court judges are the living manifestation of radical feminist anger. They HATE men. Yes they do. They hate men. What? You don’t believe me. Go ahead…make my day and go down to your local family court and see how they do.

Yes, let me repeat, they hate men. Misandry at every bench, yet some of the judges are men. It is fascinating. They reward just about any woman who walks in to the courtroom with just about anything she asks for. And yes, they enjoy breaking men down. They like inflicting pain.

What? You think probably think I’m bitter. I’m some old divorced man who got a raw deal from the court system because I cheated on my ex and got caught and had to pay. Sorry! I an’t the one. None of that stuff happened to me. Nah…I actually won in my case. I am one of the few men on the face of the earth who got a divorce from my ex wife when she had no job. I left with all the money I had left, and we share our children equally. I see my kids on a regular basis and pay no child support. I am good, thank you. And quite happy being single. Yes, I think marriage can be great and might want to get married again, but I know the game now. I won’t be taken advantage of again. No sir.

I am here to explain a few things here and there to other men who might be going through a similar ordeal. I want to help other men who have no idea what reality awaits them if they have the unfortunate circumstance of being involved in a civil law suit they call a divorce. There is no road map for men like us – none. I hear from several men who get blindsided by divorce and get hammered in court. I’m the living antidote. There is another way to go about this business of divorce, especially when kids are involved.

The video  you are about to watch is of a hearing in family court. The judge takes bits of information that he hears and connects it to the defendant. None of what the judge says in his opening remarks is true or is backed up with evidence or facts. It is not even relevant to the case on the docket.  He just assumes things to be true and takes his anger out on the poor feeble pastor. The future ex-wife is loving every minute of the verbal beat down and loves the fact that she is being rewarded will all kinds of free gifts by the judge.

Yeah, this happens every day in that hell hole they call family court.

How can you avoid this? Re-read the first few sentences then hope you never get divorced. Maybe in 25 more years, things wont be as bad. In fact, by then, women will be paying child support and permanent alimony to their exes. Things will REALLY turn around then. Just wait. Will radical feminists want the laws to be changed so that things will be equal? Maybe they will want to end gender discrimination in family courts. That would be nice wouldn’t it? See me in the year 2038. Courtrooms will have a completely different feel by then. I am sure of that.

So, with all of this being said, and without further ado, I present the most Honorable Judge William “Chip” Watkins. He is the greatest show on earth. He is able to award ex-wives money just for fun. Can speak volumes – literally. He can twist the truth in a few short sentences and jump to conclusions without even thinking things through.

Enjoy!

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APD4a347bPQ&w=420&h=315]

Now the complete story:

CHARLESTON, W.VA. – An online video records a Putnam family law judge screaming at a preacher involved in a divorce case in his courtroom.

The 16-minute video, uploaded to YouTube on Tuesday, is an official court recording of a divorce hearing for Arthur and Lillian Hage before Family Law Judge William “Chip” Watkins. The hearing occurred about 10 a.m. May 23, according to the video’s timestamp.

The Hages were in court because Arthur refused to sign papers allowing Lillian to sell their home. Watkins is the first to speak on the video.

“Before we get started, Mr. Hage, if you say one word out of turn, you’re going to jail. Do you understand me?

“After we closed here, you went out and talked to a reporter, five seconds after you left here despite my admonition. This morning I now see an article from your little buddy Smith with a picture of my home, my home on the front page.”

Watkins said Wednesday he was referring to an article that appeared on a news website just before his hearing with the Hages.

In the video, Watkins begins to scream so loudly the audio recording is distorted.

“Shut up! Don’t you speak! My wife is disabled! She’s there alone! You disgusting piece of …”

Watkins eventually apologized, saying he was too angry to “be appropriate” in the case. He said he would step down from the case.

“Your honor, we’re just concerned about losing the house here,” Lillian Hage’s attorney says.

Watkins then announced he would not recuse himself.

The judge has since changed his mind.

“I’ve thought about that since that incident. I hate to impose something like this on somebody else, but I think I probably should get out of it,” Watkins told the Daily Mail.

For more read HERE