[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« More On Emergency Contraception: Plan B | Main | I Miss My Bed »
May 30, 2004
Suckers! Fathers Rights Advocates Would Pay $37 For This Piece Of Crap?
World O'Crap put the thumbscrews to the National Fathers' Rights Association's boneheaded book about helping men avoid their child support obligations. It felt good to see someone else out there "get it" about fathers' rights groups. One of the commenters asked how the NFRA gets its funding, since it claims to be a "small nonprofit group." The small grassroots groups tend to get their funding not from big family foundations like Scaife but from membership fees and suckers willing to pony up $37 bucks for a piece of crap book that gives lousy advice that won't work.
Posted on May 30, 2004 at 01:08 PM | Permalink
Comments
Trish,
Wasn't there a father's rights group that put out info on
how to kidnap one's children and keep them from the
mother? I vaguely remember reading that some years back.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at May 30, 2004 2:09:16 PM
Man, the father's rights activists got into WOC's comments section quick. There's a guy in there who is spreading all sorts of sexist blather about how women are deceitful, and yet it's clear that he is lying about his identity. Do you have to have your irony sensors disabled to be a fathers' rights activist?
Posted by: Amanda at May 30, 2004 3:24:31 PM
Amanda, I think you'd probably not have to even have any irony sensors to be a fathers' rights activist.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 30, 2004 7:18:55 PM
Yes, Rachel Ann, there was. The instructions were in a book. I found a copy of the book at a used bookstore years ago. It cost me a whopping two bucks.
The instructions were not only illegal, they were incredibly stupid for anyone to even attempt to try. The gist of the recommendations was that when dad takes the kids and runs, by the time mom finds them the dad's lawyer's argument would be this: several years have passed, the kids are set in their schools, neighborhoods, churchs, etc., and it would not be in their best interests to rip them from what they know and feel comfortable with.
If you want to know more about fathers' rights activists who kidnap their own kids, go to my categories and click on "Lowell Jaks/ANCPR." He is now in jail for kidnapping his son and spiriting him away to the Dominican Republic. He ran the very popular and very vicious fathers' rights group the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parent's Rights.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 30, 2004 7:22:27 PM
I just remember reading the advice to get a dog because that would endear him (dad) to the judges heart and the judge, even if the wife found him, wouldn't want to take the little kiddies from their dog.
His whole tone made me sick, and it is sad people actually folllow this man anywhere. Why would someone act that cruelly to their child?
One wonders at the hate of people who burn their children to destroy their children's mom.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at May 31, 2004 12:07:06 AM
Don't you feel good now? Someone else is beating up on the FR besides you!!! LOL
BTW you should post the name of that book so they can all try it and end up in jail. Just like their buddy Lowell.
Posted by: Moi ;) at May 31, 2004 12:34:41 AM
My,my, we are a bunch of evil, vengeful, ignorant dykes aren't we?
As a woman myself, I have always known how spiteful, evil and psychologically damaging women can be, though I don't think dykes should be considered as women, they are even worse.
I feel very sorry that you all have been so brainwashed, I hope some day that you will realise the damage you do by promoting false information as you are doing. You all obviously must hate children and families very much to do what you do.
I hope none of you have children of your own, they don't deserve to have such a person as a mother.
Perhaps you are trying to draw attention away from the abuse you are causing yourselves?
I pity you all.
Posted by: Penny Campbell at May 31, 2004 2:44:02 PM
i love it! i'm an evil dyke! wait til my wife finds out
even better is this paragraph:
As a woman myself, I have always known how spiteful, evil and psychologically damaging women can be, though I don't think dykes should be considered as women, they are even worse.
if i'm understanding penny's point here it seems to be:
1. women are spiteful, evil and psycholigically damaging
2. dykes are not women, but they are worse on the spitefulness, evilness and psychological damaging scale
3. penny herself is a woman
is it just me, or doesn't #1 and 3 sink any kind of credibility she might have? after all, why should i trust anyone that evil or spiteful. if i pay attention to what she says, i might be psychologically damaged.
of course, since i am and all other commentators here are dykes, perhaps penny should avoid this site altogether to avoid even more severe psycholigical damage. clearly trish's posts and the rest of our comments are too much for penny's fragile (yet evil) psyche
Posted by: upyernoz at May 31, 2004 4:38:01 PM
Penny: "As a woman myself, I have always known how spiteful, evil and psychologically damaging women can be..."
Wow. Did Penny just admit she's a spiteful, evil, psychologically damaging woman? But at least she's not a dyke!
Why oh why do I get the weird trolls???
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 31, 2004 4:45:57 PM
Dykes? Yes that does explain the stupidity and ignorance
of Ms Tiolet Wilson. She has been divorced 6 times and still
can't get a man, all her kids hate her also. So she has become a dyke
Truly yours in war!
National Fathers Rights Association
Posted by: NFRA at Jun 1, 2004 1:15:20 AM
[Trish's note: Two repeats of the nonsense posted by someone claiming to be the National Fathers' Rights Association (NFRA) deleted.]
Posted by: NFRA at Jun 1, 2004 1:18:56 AM
Gee, sometimes I don't have to do a thing to show how ridiculous fathers' rights groups are...
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jun 1, 2004 2:18:24 AM
Wow, so "fathers' rights" activists and their bitter supporters also hate gays.
What a shock.
You're right, of course. I am filled with hate. I will now promote love by acting the way you do--with homophobic slurs (especially loved the comment about how lesbians aren't people Miss Phelps), homophobic slurs, making up lies about a blogger's personal life, and scrambling to starve your kids or your new squeeze's kids.
Wow. Feel the love!
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jun 1, 2004 11:40:37 AM
So glad I upset you all, notice you cannot make an intelligent reply to anything I have said, that just confirms that I am right.
Why do you need to delete messages by the NFRA? They must be scaring you if you cannot handle their comments.
Yes, as a woman I have used psychological games myself, not for evil purposes such as yours. Actually, I'm not anti-gay, I'm anti anyone who deliberately seeks to destroy innocent lives, it just happens that in the child 'protection' industry and the woman's 'equal' (ha,ha, that's a laugh) rights industry, most campains have been hijacked by the feniminist lesbian fundamentalists and their sick ideals. It's no surprise so many women were burned as witches.
Posted by: Penny Campbell at Jun 1, 2004 3:49:28 PM
I think you get the weird trolls because you criticize father's rights groups, who are probably in the top 5 of weirdest reactionary trends, alongside other trends like "Christians" who think that God creats homosexuals so he can hate them and the slew of conservative women who whose jobs are telling other women not to have jobs.
Posted by: Amanda at Jun 1, 2004 4:20:47 PM
hey penny, you didn't upset me, you made me laugh. i didn't respond with "anything intelligent" because i simply did not see anything intelligent to respond to. all your first comment had was a bunch of name calling and ad hominid attacks.
Why do you need to delete messages by the NFRA? They must be scaring you if you cannot handle their comments
actually penny, if you read what trish wrote, NFRA posted the same thing 3 times. she left the first copy there, but deleted the other two. she even made sure to note what she was doing. this is not the case of trish hiding anything. to the extent NFRA has anything to say, we all can read it. but NFRA's comments had about as much substance as yours. perhaps you think "toilet wilson" is rational debate, but personally there's nothing you can do with that except post "am not!" or ignore it altogether. perhaps you see some grounds for trish to be frightened, i just feel bad for her that this forum she has created for actual discussion would descend to such levels.
Yes, as a woman I have used psychological games myself, not for evil purposes such as yours
can you define your terms? what exactly are the "psychological games" you are referring to that trish and others here are engaging in? what is the "evil purpose" and why exactly is it evil? labeling something "evil" is not an argument either. why don't you try to string one together and then maybe you'll get some kind of argument back.
I'm not anti-gay
how does that statement relate to your earlier statement that:
I don't think dykes should be considered as women, they are even worse.
to me, at least, that seems to be pretty blatently anti-gay (consider "i don't think black women should be considered as women, they are even worse" is pretty clearly anti-black. if you can come up with some distinction here that i cannot see, feel free to explain it to me)
I'm anti anyone who deliberately seeks to destroy innocent lives, it just happens that in the child 'protection' industry and the woman's 'equal' (ha,ha, that's a laugh) rights industry, most campains have been hijacked by the feniminist lesbian fundamentalists and their sick ideas/
again, you've made some statements here, but not really an argument. explain exactly how the "child protection industry" "deliberately seeks to destroy innocent lives." now remember, it's not enough to show that they inadvertently harmed anyone. you're saying they deliberately do it. i want to see what you got.
and why do you think trish is a "lesbian"? i'm curious about that one too. it doesn't take much reading here to find evidence to the contrary.
and "fundamentalist"? fundamentalist what? most of the fundamentalists i see around here are more on your side of the political divide. but that's just my impression. i'm curious where yours come from.
It's no surprise so many women were burned as witches
since you brought it up, what is your view on witch burning? are you pro- or con-? you seem to be implying that witch burning was, at the least, understandable, if not justified. do you think trish is a witch too?
alright. so despite your rather hysterical non-argument of a post, i did my best to resond to everthing you wrote. i would ask that you extend the same to me. i asked a number of questions here, please be so kind as to answer each one. if you don't, i can only conclude that you are (as you put it) "just confirm[ing] that I am right."
Posted by: upyernoz at Jun 1, 2004 5:53:39 PM
PSA:
TROLLS ARE NOT FED HERE.
PLEASE REQUEST IMMEDIATE
ASSISTANCE FROM YOUR MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDER.
Posted by: Tild at Jun 1, 2004 6:07:20 PM
Oh, this is great fun.
As Jon Stewart says, "Sometimes the jokes just write themselves."
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jun 1, 2004 6:19:38 PM
Rachel Ann, here's an excerpt from that book I was telling you about that instructs men how to kidnap their children. Keep in mind that doing this is a great way for a guy to get his big hairy ass in jail. Just look at all my posts about Lowell Jaks and the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parent's Rights to find out exactly how that happens when dad kidnaps his child, all in the name of "fathers' rights."
"Some men elect to circumvent the process by the underhanded tactic of absconding with the children to another jurisdiction. I always recommend against this tactic only because it serves to exacerbate an already bad situation and because children can suffer severe psychological damage as a result. However, I have discovered that fathers intent on flight are not easily dissuaded.
[Trish's note: This clown then goes on to describe the ugly tactic in vivid detail, despite "recommending against it" and knowing that it can severely damage children. He doesn't seem to know the meaning of the words "trace credit cards," "Amber Alert," and other similar ways these jerks are caught. Jaks was caught in a couple of months. Ignore the "no court order" business. The courts can easily establish who had been the primary caregiver before the split, so not having a court order means nothing. And this clown is an attorney!!! (At least he was when he wrote the book. Can't say for sure now.]
Provided no court order exists mandating who has custody, in many states a parent has the legal right to take the children wherever he desires. Although it can be psychologically destructive to deprive children of their mother, the act of taking the children is not illegal in and of itself. By moving to another state (or even a country that traditionally favors father's rights), the father is forcing his spouse to expend financial resources to (1) locate her family and (2) contest custody in the jurisdiction of the fathers' choosing.
While the mother wages her struggle, years can pass. During that time the children may become more an dmore bonded with the father. Thus, when the mother finally wins a hearing on the merits, the father can truthfully argue that it is in the best interests of the children to remain with the parnet to whom they are most attached. Some judges may not accept this reasoning but others will, particularly if expert testimony can be elicited to the same effect.
----
And to think that there are idiots out there that actually follow this poor advice and wonder why their worlds fall apart when they are caught.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jun 1, 2004 6:37:22 PM
What's funny, Noz, is that we don't even know for sure if anyone from the NFRA actually wrote that comment. Could be any snert out of hundreds on the WWW who saw my post and the the posts on both World O'Crap and Atrios, and decided to pull a funny.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jun 1, 2004 6:40:31 PM
Penny: "It's no surprise so many women were burned as witches."
Noz: "since you brought it up, what is your view on witch burning? are you pro- or con-? you seem to be implying that witch burning was, at the least, understandable, if not justified. do you think trish is a witch too?"
Noz, as you know, I happen to live near witch territory (Salem). If Penny is referring to American witches, they were hanged, not burned. Not only is she trying to pass off invective as fact, she can't get her history straight. (Pun intended. Just keeping in spirit with all her lesbian slurs that pepper each of her posts.)
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jun 1, 2004 7:02:05 PM
I would like to point out a few things that seem to be portrayed incorrectly by many here. I am a "noncustodial" father who was ordered to pay child support about 10 years ago. The situation unfolded like this: I was dating a young woman (21 at the time) and I was 22. We were obviously sleeping together, with what I thought was an understanding that neither of us was interested in having children. I spent much of my time at her place, although we did not formally live together. Every morning, I noticed a pill disappear from the birth-control pill dispenser. Little did I know that they were not being swallowed, rather flushed. And to correct some here, the purpose was never some imaginary "gravy train" of child support. She just wanted to have a child, whether I was interested or not. When she informed me that she was pregnant, I offered to "do the right thing" and get married, but this was the farthest thing from her mind. She informed me that she was seeing someone else, and was marrying him and moving to Pennsylvania (from Northern California). I was at my daughter's birth, and saw her again when she was three. I offered to help financially, but was informed in no uncertain terms by the new husband that my money and contact were very unwelcome.
Well, many years go by (about 5), and I am informed by Lancaster County, Pennsylvania that mother and new husband have 4 more children, are now unemployed, and are on welfare. I am ordered to appear in court (in another state) for a paternity determination (the first child, a girl, is mine). Lancaster County asks the court to order child support to be paid to them for the cost of 1 of the 5 children's welfare support from the state.
This could not have come at a worse time in my life. I had just entered college and was working part-time in a college town making not a lot of money (for those who have lived in a college town, you know of what I speak...A large, captive, well-educated workforce that can be had for a low wage.) I realize that $400 a month does not sound like a lot, but realize that I was making about $1000, attending a University full-time, and paying the rather exorbitant rents that college towns garner. My phone was cut off for months at a time, water service cut off about every other month, and eviction notices were common (forcing me to pay my rent at the courthouse).
In the end, I graduated from college with a BA in PoliSci and History, and went on to law school. I have since graduated, and landed a very good job.
And I have been contacted by my daughter who will soon turn 18, and who has wanted to know about me for years, but her "new" dad would not allow it. I have arranged to put her through college, and to have her live with me at the same time.
All of this background information is just to let you know where I am coming from. What bothers me most about the "system" is that while women are treated always as the victims here, and while groups like NOW go on and on about women's reproductive rights, there doesn't seem to be any reciprocal feelings about men's reproductive rights. I never "chose" to be a father (even if I am glad that I am now). My pay was garnished for years, and to some extent, I was a "slave" to the child-support system. I suppose that if my money were actually going to my daughter, I would have felt better about the situation. And, for those that believe that there are no longer "debtor's prisons" in the United States, you might be surprised. Although court-ordered child support is a civil matter, if you fall upon hard times, there is no appeal process to get a waiver or deferrment of any kind. And when you fall behind, you are in violation of a judge's order, and subject to criminal contempt of court proceedings. I know this from first-hand knowledge, having spent a night in jail for falling behind by $1600. And a contempt finding has no period of time on it. You can be incarcerated for years with no end in sight. (And this does happen to the worst of the so-called "dead-beat dads").
I guess the point that bothers me the most is that when women's groups are screaming about the possible erosion of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights, that fatherhood can be forced upon a man. (Interestingly, in the name of "the best interests of the child," over 300 appellate cases exist where men who were raped (and yes, this does happen, usually at parties where the men pass out) and ended up fathering children, were forced to pay child support even AFTER the women were convicted). I just think it is very hypocritical to demand female reproductive rights, and then snicker and debase the same claims by men. Men are told to "zip it," while telling a woman to "keep them shut" is portrayed as female-bashing, right-wing, and very non PC.
I realize that child need to be cared for, and that my situation might or might not be unusual. It just seems that the system, which is EXTREMELY adversarial and usually staffed by young attorneys looking to make a reputation, is broken and that blame can be portioned out to many parties.
Posted by: Nathaniel Wheelwright at Jun 2, 2004 3:45:55 AM
Perhaps I wasn't as eloquent above as I had hoped. To reiterate, i suppose that men and women view this topic far differently. If a man and woman conceive a child, the woman always has the choice (at least to this point in American jurisprudence) as to whether she wants to be a mother. The father has no such choice. Many will argue that this is correct, since the woman has to physically carry the child for 9 months. But I would argue that having to "carry" a child finacially for 18 years is just as big a burden on the body. To me, a judge ordering a non-willing father to pay child support is akin to a judge ordering a pregnant woman to carry the baby to term. And I think it's fair to say that a judge making THAT order would upset EVERY poster on this board.
Posted by: Nathaniel Wheelwright at Jun 2, 2004 6:39:05 AM
Hi, Nathaniel. I'm glad you posted. Your problem wasn't so much about child support under normal circumstances but child support as viewed by welfare reform. I firmly believe that states need to find another way to reimburse their welfare coffers. I don't think you should have been ordered to pay support. You probably didn't see my comments at World O' Crap. Here's what I wrote there. It pertains directly to you.
-
To add to what Brendan said (and thanks for the nice words), welfare reform is not about helping families rise out of poverty. Child Support Enforcement is not about providing financial support for poor families. The purpose of all of this is to help the states get "those people" off their backs because states no longer want to provide assistance for the poor. So, the state will track down the man who provided the sperm for the child, make him take a DNA test, call him "daddy" (even if he hasn't seen his child in years and has no interest - and neither has mom), and siphon "child support" from him to reimburse state welfare coffers, all under the legal fiction "child support is for the children." That legal fiction makes it harder for the man and especially the woman to reject child support. Some people and groups now erroneously claim that DNA equals fatherhood, when that ignores the man's possible status as legal father. This has led to the "paternity fraud" movement, which is just another way these guys have devised to avoid their child support obligations.
District attorney in CSE cases don't even represent individual mothers anymore the way they used to before welfare reform. Now, they represent the CSE administration (the state). That should be a BIG clue as to what welfare reform and CSE are really about.
Child support in plain old divorce/custody cases is actually much easier to deal with than that mess.
Although she was your biological daughter, your ex's husband had been raising her. He was the true legal father who should have taken responsibility for her care. While your case is horrible, and it definitely illustrates a big problem with welfare reform, it doesn't mean that debtor's prisons are alive and well in the U. S. I have heard of a couple of cases where a man who had been singled out to pay support via welfare reform had spent time in jail, overall that does not happen, even in welfare cases. Fatherhood programs have been known to forgive arrearages if the guy signs up for classes. Besides, under normal circumstances, willful refusal to follow a court order to pay child support is what lands a guy in jail, not the act of not paying itself.
Likewise, a case like yours does not mean that fatherhood can be forced upon a man across the board. Please see the "paternity fraud" movement to see how men who have established themselves as a child's father, despite not being the bio-dad, have successfully revoked their child support obligations.
There's no point in bringing NOW or the mainstream feminist movement into this debate because they are not interesting in parenting issues. While there are individual feminists such as myself who work hard on these issues, mainstream feminism has not shown interest in the parenting issues, family law, or the fathers' rights movement. What happened to you isn't so much about a "choice" for men. It's not really about reproductive freedom, so taking that angle against feminism isn't appropriate either. It's about welfare reform completely messing up child support theory and creating legal fiction to get reimbursement. Did you know that if your ex had not wanted child support money from you that the state would not have allowed her to turn it down? That's what the legal fiction "child support is for the children" is about - it prevents the mother and her ex (the bio-dad) from interfering with the state's business. Cases like yours are all about reimbursing the states on the backs of people who can neither defend themselves nor stop it. I think unwed fathers' rights has led to a great deal of problems for both men and women, and especially for children.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jun 2, 2004 7:52:13 AM
Yes. You are correct. The "biological mother" actually played NO part in my case. As I said, she neither sought, and in fact her husband vehemently opposed, any contribution from me. The action was initiated by and on behalf of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and the State of Pennsylvania.As for your comment about "debtor's prisons," I have to respectfully disagree. As an attorney (albeit a young, "wet behind the ears" attorney), I have seen this happen first hand quite often. I was 4 payments ($1600) behind and was put in jail overnight until I could have a family member wire the money to a friend who paid it for me, I was told in no uncertain terms that I would remain behind bars until the arrearage was paid in full. And I was not alone. I was transported to the County Jail with 15 others that day, all in a similar situation. Perhaps I got unlucky with the judge, or perhaps it's the state I live in. Interestingly, I was offered "classes" and I was one of TWO people (out of 156 it was offered to) that actually showed up (the other was a woman who was behind on her child support payments). When I expressed interest in learning automotive and air conditioning skills (what the hell, they're valuable skills), they asked me how far I had gotten in school. When I informed them that I was currently enrolled in law school, they told me the program was not designed for "people like me."
I guess that the gist of my post is that if you are in favor of "reproductive rights," you can't be JUST in favor of female reproductive rights. It's like the conservatives who are "pro life" when it comes to abortion, and then favor the death penalty. It's hypocritical.
As for the "Men's Rights Groups," some posters there are quite erudite and worth listening to, and others are crackpots. The same as most "movements" I suppose. It takes all types. The idiots that threw powder on PM Blair should be jailed. What morons in today's climate of terrorism hysteria.
By the way, this is my first visit to your blog. It is very informative and I enjoy it.
Posted by: at Jun 2, 2004 8:15:21 AM
"I guess that the gist of my post is that if you are in favor of "reproductive rights," you can't be JUST in favor of female reproductive rights."
If we could grow a fetus in a jar, I *might * agree. However, pregnancy very immediately affects the health of the woman. It affects her body and can put her at great risk. That is the crux of reproductive rights. Yes, some of it is not wanting to have a child. But a lot of it--at least in my case--is not wanting to continue a pregnancy, period.
I do *not* want any guy I've been with to force me to carry a pregnancy to term. He's not the one who has to deal with the health issues--I am. He's not the one who has to deal with the possible complications--I am. If he was able to carry and bear the child, then all the power to him. But as it stands now, it will be a cold day in hell before I allow anyone to force me to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jun 2, 2004 9:59:30 AM
Well put, Sheelzebub. Reproductive rights aren't written as the right to have a child or not so much as the right for a woman to make medical decisions regarding what happens to her body, whether to be pregnant or not. There's a distinction. Men can't decide whether to be pregnant or not because, well, they can't be pregnant. I can't decide whether to get a vasecomty 'cause I'm not equipped.
I've allowed the right wing's framing of the issue to creep into my views as well, that abortion and birth control is about "having a baby", because yes, in the end that's what drives most women's decisions. But legally, it's about bodily intergrity.
Posted by: Amanda at Jun 2, 2004 5:17:20 PM
First of all, let me say that you've made a HUGE (incorrect) assumption here. "I've allowed the right wing's framing of the issue to creep into my views as well." Is that the immediate response to anything critical of a pure feminist stance?
I am NOT "right wing," nor Republican. In fact, as a trial lawyer, I work dilligently to defeat mostly Republican candidates for public office (local, state, and federal) who are working to destroy 230 years of American jurisprudence through the smoke screen called "tort reform."
That being said, I guess I need to further elucidate my point. When a man and woman conceive a child (whether intended or not), the choice to bring that baby to term and deliver rests solely on the woman, AS IT SHOULD. HOWEVER, forced child support is every bit as much about one's PHYSICAL well-being. Forced to work two or more jobs, living in substandard conditions to make payments, eating less healthy for the same reasons all have physical effects.
I have NO PROBLEM with women having the final and SOLE say over their bodies. But I also believe that men should have a say about support at an early stage. They should be able to say in the first, say, 3 months of a pregnancy that they are not willing to take on the emotional or financial responsibilities of parenthood. Then that lets the woman know where she stands.
I know this will raise the hackles of many here, but I really belive that when you talk about "reproductive rights," to leave this out is every bit are awful, demeaning, and wrong as the rhetoric coming from the religious "pro-life" crowd.
Posted by: Nathaniel Wheelwright at Jun 3, 2004 2:37:54 AM
I can NOT believe what a bunch of angry cunt's that post in here!
Obviously a bunch of man haters! Get a grip people. Move forward with your lives and things that happend to you and most likely caused yourselves. You have nerve to mention "TONE" in these pos't!?!? Listen to yourselves! Now people like yourselves are WORTH getting pist over! Your all a bunch of anrgy idiots! Take responsibility for your own live's
and quit being so bitter. EIther that or buy a damn vibrator!
Posted by: I cant believe this! at Jul 8, 2004 1:27:06 AM
Wow, what an intelligent and articulate refutation of our points.
Not.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jul 8, 2004 10:11:27 AM
Really, Sheelz. Don't let me interrupt the wildly flying diatribes with facts. That would only "pist" the commenter off more. ;)
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jul 8, 2004 2:04:45 PM
Indeed. I'm so "anrgy" about our "live's" that I shouldn't "pos't".
Heh.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jul 9, 2004 10:28:45 AM
I agree with your last post, Nathaniel. So how about this as a solution: a return to the marriage-based system of family rights where unmarried men and women could not make legal demands on each other with regard to children. That would mean no visitation rights, no child support rights, nothing--unless the parties had been married. Then no one would have family responsibilities forced on them--they would have to assume them voluntarily through marriage. It always angers me to see courts assign people the rights and responsibilities originally intended to protect the family where there is no family at all. It only serves to condone irresponsible behavior and cheapen actual marriage.
Posted by: Anne at Jul 9, 2004 4:15:37 PM
