And now for the feminist perspective
The "Fathers
Rights Movement" exists to dodge child support
http://mensnewsdaily.com/stories/u-v/untershine/untershine021003.htm
|
|
And now for the feminist perspective
The "Fathers
Rights Movement" exists to dodge child support |
Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 02-08-03
The "No Spin Zone" continues to echo the feminist perspective regarding the plight facing men who dare to have sex with women. The topic of discussion was the unfair advantage that the courts grant to a pregnant woman, regarding their exploitation of unplanned children for money. Glenn Sacks was attempting to make a distinction between men who consciously decide to be fathers, and men who become fathers due to an unprotected "poke in the whiskers":
The National Organization for Women (NOW) has portrayed a father's fight for child custody as "the fathers’ bitterness about being required to pay child support" \1
"The 'Father's Rights Movement' is all about men who are attempting to avoid supporting their children" \2 spewed the stand in for Bill O'Reilly, capping off the interview with Glenn Sacks. The stand in, John Kasich, is a former member of the House of Representatives, where he built a reputation as an attacker of bloated government. All members of the House of Representatives believe child support demanded by each state is the same as that state's welfare benefits. \3 Mr. Kasich has been deceived into thinking child support is reasonable in all states.
Bill O'Reilly entitled a previous segment "Is it your constitutional right to have babies and not support them?" \4, regarding a Wisconsin man who was ordered by the court to "cease and desist" impregnating women.
When the California governor, Gray Davis, vetoed a bill to end paternity fraud, the Bill O'Reilly interview with Dianna Thompson was mysteriously postponed. It seems that Bill O'Reilly is still snake bit from the interview with Stephen Baskerville, who proceeded to lay down the family law, defending Deadbeat Dads, and made Bill O'Reilly like it. \5
The hypocrisy of this "No Spin" perspective becomes glaring if you are familiar with the many crusades launched by Bill O'Reilly concerning charities not handing over money to the intended recipients. The public misperception seems to be that a child has a legal right to the money paid for its support. As if to say "There is no incentive for a woman to get pregnant seeking child support, since she would have nothing to gain".
A father earning $53,000/yr net income in California must pay $1,100/mo to the mother of his child (tax-free, regardless of the mother's income, for at least 18 years, never account for a dime). \6 If the mother is on welfare in California, the taxpayers pay her $384/mo and $243/mo for the child for a total of $627/mo (food stamps, work requirements, strict accountability). \7
The public misperception as a function of circumstance may be described as follows:
$473/mo - Father dared to raise children - pays for the mother and child. ($1,100 - $627).
$857/mo - Father didn’t wear a rubber - pays only for the child. ($1,100 - $243).
$1,100/mo - Father is not the father - must not pay for the child ($1,100 - $0).
The public perception of a "Deadbeat Dad" seems to revolve around a father's inability to keep his family off the welfare roles. The state's perception is that if Dads don't fall behind in child support the state will lose all federal funding. The federal perception should be that the states must implement the child support guidelines as reported to the House of Representatives in the Greenbook. \3 If the state child support guideline were the same as the state welfare benefit then the public perception would equal the truth.
If I were a former member of the House of Representatives (John Kasich) and learned that the financial demands forced on my constituents were fraudulently reported to hide the common denominator to welfare reform, I would demand to "make it accurate, or make it law". The family law solution is already in place at the federal level and is waiting for our legislators to demand that we enforce it. \3
Gone are the days when a woman would attempt to get pregnant to guilt the man of her dreams into marrying her. Now getting pregnant represents a tax-free windfall for at least 18 years without any responsibility to account for a dime. This very lucrative arrangement provokes gullible women to:
Dissolve a marriage.
Instigate an out-of-wedlock birth.
Commit paternity fraud.
Motivate their own murder (in California).
These startling revelations may raise more questions:
If the public perception is that child support is fair, then why is Dad expected to kill Mom in California?
Why would a woman stop instigating children when there is no limit to this tax-free money?
Why would a woman choose to buy the cow, when she can milk it through the fence?
Why should lesbians be paid to raise a family at the expense of their chosen host, while gay men must rely on pride parades to acquire new family members?
Citations:
Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, gzs@gndzerosrv.com, www.gndzerosrv.com
Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13 years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently using the teachings of Werner Heisenberg and Henry David Thoreau to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.