One thing which struck me when I started looking into the issue of child support is how difficult it is to distinguish between child support and the welfare state. For example, in 2007 47.6% of all custodial parents with support agreements in the U.S. were on public assistance. In cases where the custodial parent is on welfare, child support payments are paid to the state which may or may not pass a token amount of the funds on to the custodial parent. The interrelationship between public assistance and child support in the U.S. is described in the paper Child Support Harming Children: Subordinating the Best Interests of Children to the Fiscal Interests of the State (2007):
Out of the $105 billion in child support debt nationwide, the government claims half so it can seek to recoup the costs of welfare benefits provided to low-income families. Our current welfare program, called Temporary Aid to Needy Families (“TANF”), requires custodial parents applying for benefits to cooperate in establishing child support obligations against the absent parents and to simultaneously assign the resulting child support payments to the government. Mothers, fathers, and children all become government debtors—the mothers and children owe their child support rights and the fathers owe the payments until the welfare benefits are repaid in full. This system of welfare cost recovery is a side of child support that is largely unknown to the public. Rather, child support is generally perceived as a pure good: a benefit to children, families, and society, as well as a moral and legal obligation of absent parents. But for the millions of children whose child support has been assigned to the government, the reality of child support is anything but pure or good.
This blurry line makes sense when you consider that both have the same basic objective; both are designed to shelter children from the poor choices made by their parents. Moreover, in both cases this almost exclusively means providing benefits to mothers. However, safety net programs are supposed to be something only used in a true emergency. If they are made too generous, too readily available, or without stigma they will inevitably be abused. With this in mind one key problem with the current system in the US is it allows welfare mothers to rationalize away their welfare dependency; they only need welfare because the baby daddy isn’t sending them a big enough check. Perhaps worse, middle class baby mamas are painted as a sort of heroic victim for receiving child support payments. They don’t need to apply for welfare benefits, and no one questions the life’s choices which lead to a situation where they are dependent on a third party for monthly checks. As long as they got knocked up by or divorced a wealthy enough man, there is no stigma to them raising their children out of wedlock. The only irresponsible party is the man.
The paper I mentioned above also corroborates a point I made in The child support catastrophe. The adversarial and high stakes nature of the child support system is damaging to the very relationships the child needs most:
Poor mothers are forced to name absent fathers, and then sue them—and sue them again and again. Because the fathers are often also poor, the vast amount of assigned child support goes unpaid and insurmountable arrearages quickly result. The fathers who try almost always fail as the automated enforcement mechanisms throttle endlessly: a trucker’s license is suspended, so he cannot work; a laborer’s wages are garnished at sixty-five percent, so he cannot afford to pay his own rent; a father obtains a new job and then loses it after being incarcerated for contempt because of his child support arrearages. The relationships between the mothers and fathers, fragile at their beginnings, can be obliterated through the process. The hopes of children to have fathers who are supportive and involved in their lives are often dissolved.
With so much money coming to the state, there is little incentive to reform the process. The punitive nature of enforcing child support payments – almost universally against fathers – has nothing to do with encouraging men to pay up, it’s all about revenge on fathers for the past “wrongs” committed by all men against women. Feminist-oriented public policy has a large and mean streak of revenge against men.
The state found a great way to obliterate fathers. Now it can beef up its police force to go after fathers and the fatherless boys who get into the criminal life.
I hope this changes when no government entity can further pay the pensions on these ‘public servants’.
The adversarial and high stakes nature of the child support system is damaging to the very relationships the child needs most.
Astute observation, Dalrock.
I’ll have a longer post on this later.
I do support children getting support from both parents. I do not support most of the current policies of the current child support regime.
Dalrock,
Slightly off-topic, but in line with other subjects you’ve touched. . . have you seen this article? Many first-hand stories of the confluence of menopause and the divorce industry: http://lifetwo.com/production/node/20070919-does-menopause-cause-many-women-to-initiate-a-divorce
Children can’t vote. So it doesn’t really matter to politicians what is in childrens’ best interests. As long as they can use creative book-keeping and rationalisation to shift resources from males to their majority constituent, females, thereby cementing their hold on power, then males and children will continue to have their interests ignored or exploited for the gain of others.
Posted before, but… divorce/child-support hell for veterans (divorced and military… call me bitter).
Fathers who don’t support their children are called “deadbeat dads”
Why aren’t mothers who are on welfare (and don’t support their children) called “deadbeat mothers”?
True story:
I know a guy who, 15 years ago, had his wife leave him, taking their 3 kids with her. (Actually, the youngest kid didn’t look like him at all, so was probably not his).
Anyway, the wife got a divorce, and since she didn’t work on account of claiming to have anxiety attacks, she signed up for welfare to help support the kids. The ex husband didn’t make a lot of money in the first place, but welfare went after him to recoup some of their money they were putting out for his kids. This guy literally was left with 40 bucks a week to live on after welfare took their share. He had to move back into his parents house at the age of 35, and go on food stamps himself. This guy was working full time and nearly all his money was being garnished by the county to pay for the welfare of his kids, while his ex wife who was collecting disability on account of her phony anxiety attacks was living good, especially after she found a boyfriend to move in with.
What happens when men smarten up and decide not only to not get married, but to not have children at all? What will Big Daddy Government do then?
What happens when men smarten up and decide not only to not get married, but to not have children at all? What will Big Daddy Government do then?
Import more men from other countries, as has been going on for years. More “man up” campaigns in the main stream press. More sermonizing about the duties of fatherhood. More “get tough” campaigns against “deadbeat dads”. In other words, since the current policies are not working, they must be doubled-down on, the policies must be applied with more force. That’s what I expect.
One important thing that is revealed in Dalrock’s ongoing series on divorce is how easy a job it is to get trad-cons to support blatantly misandric legislation. All the left has to do is wave “For The Children” or “Protect Women” around on a sign, and traditional conservatives fall all over themselves to get in line to support whatever the cause of the month happens to be. That’s what happened with welfare “reform” in this case, and to this day trad-cons trumpet it as a big victory over then-President Clinton. But the real effect has been increasing criminalization of men, as Dalrock shows in this posting, and it is now reaching the point in some communities where marriage is basically the first step to prison.
From time to time, some tradcon here or there will suddenly discover that, gosh, marriage 2.0 is kind of sort of bad for men, and there’s even a few laws that are sort of not good. But in every case, having tripped over a truth, the tradcon in question will dust off his pants (or her pant-suit) and rush off as if nothing had actually happened. I cannot guess what it will take to get tradcons in any substantial numbers to see the reality that men under 50 live in, maybe like the feminists they all too often ally with they won’t be able to see anything until it comes and harms them personally.
Some people just have to learn such things the hard way, i guess.
Dalrock I wish not to intrude much but certain parts from comments such as that of TFH and Anonymous Reader are counterproductive. Sometimes I sincerely believe that men’s rights activists are the mirror image of women’s rights activists (feminists). A couple of times they go on about chilvary and pedestal but this is nonsense. I understand the whole welfare state, corporations and big government demonizing masculinity and agree with this statement but when they go about “conservatives think women are holy”, “Victorian view of women as perfect” and whatnot (especially concerning traditional conservatives such as Laura Wood, Lawrence Auster, Mark Richardson and others) I get sincerely confused and irritated. Their attacks are erroneous. I understand when they target classical liberals and right-liberals but often they do not. A few times these misconceptions makes more enemies than friends.
Note: In case a couple of people don’t know me I’m Elizabeth Smith from OZConservative.
“What happens when men smarten up and decide not only to not get married, but to not have children at all? What will Big Daddy Government do then?”
The whole point of MGTOW is to help men “smarten up” and to normalize being smart. I also feel MGTOW is a way of life that has to over come real natural tendencies men have. A man will naturally love and take care of a women without any outside influences. That is a natural tendency that can be over come with knowledge of the consequences of that good deed.The young man GHOW starts out as a PUA and practicioner of “game” As he ages he grows weary and reduces the number of women he is involved with if any. He hangs with his friends and uses prosititutes, pump and dumps, or just enjoys the sexual attention of a slut. The only thing these men will have in common is the government with there useful idiots (feminist… male,female liberal and conservative) will not benefit from the mans labor intelligence or effort. With all of the gay marriage and old childless women surrogacy and adoption will be available for more men that desire children without the risk of having them taken from you by some women.
What will the government do? Why they will double down on what they are doing now. The only guys left paying child support will be manginas,whiteknights and dumb pussy whipped betas that were dumb enough to get emotionally involved with a woman. And these fellas here will be there to save the day
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uRIMUBnvw
Alcestiseshtemoa – ”In case a couple of people don’t know me I’m Elizabeth Smith from OZConservative.”
Yeah, I think we’ve all known that. [and as an aside, despite your angry request that I “never speak to you again”, I did notice not too long ago that you specifically made note of “their own biological children” (or something to that effect), so I’m wondering if that is to be taken as an indication that you have seriously reconsidered your previously expressed “child-bearing goals” – over which I got so cross-wise with you?]
I think you overstate the disagreement that some of us have with “Traditionalists”. It’s not that they hold women out as being perfect, although they often do pedastalize women as being “more pure in spirit” do try to affix some “evil-male” explanation to any female fallibility. It really much more about their typical “damned the (divorce) torpedoes, full speed ahead (into marriage young man)” attitudes that they express in response to the very real issues young men do face.
In fact, Anonymous Reader, to whom you specifically refer, was last seen (August 23, 2011 at 10:05 am, to be precise) stating:
”More sermonizing about the duties of fatherhood. More “get tough” campaigns against “deadbeat dads”. In other words, since the current policies are not working, they must be doubled-down on, the policies must be applied with more force. That’s what I expect.
One important thing that is revealed in Dalrock’s ongoing series on divorce is how easy a job it is to get trad-cons to support blatantly misandric legislation. All the left has to do is wave “For The Children” or “Protect Women” around on a sign, and traditional conservatives fall all over themselves to get in line to support whatever the cause of the month happens to be. That’s what happened with welfare “reform” in this case, and to this day trad-cons trumpet it as a big victory over then-President Clinton. But the real effect has been increasing criminalization of men, as Dalrock shows in this posting, and it is now reaching the point in some communities where marriage is basically the first step to prison.”
That, I believe, is more reflective of the overall general disagreement with Trad-Cons (and those who imagine themselves to be “Christian Conservatives”) than does any mention of their female pedastalizing, white-knighting tendencies based on the perceived innate “virtue” of women (a separate issue).
It really much more about their typical “damned the (divorce) torpedoes, full speed ahead (into marriage young man)” attitudes that they express in response to the very real issues young men do face.
Mosts Christians caution to look at and assess one’s future and future spouse.
so I’m wondering if that is to be taken as an indication that you have seriously reconsidered your previously expressed “child-bearing goals” – over which I got so cross-wise with you?
I’ve decided that a broken family isn’t a good idea. Also I don’t believe you really understood my previous motivations. I’m biracial (I think you’re full blooded slwerner?). My brothers and sisters don’t want to preserve my father’s and mother’s blood and want to have 3 or 4 more nationalities in their children therefore further eradicating the preservation of our parent’s bloodline. It’s saddening. I want to preserve my parent’s nation, culture and history and I got desperate and confused. I’m asking God to steer my brother and sister to help preserve the racial heritage in our family because it’s really bad to feel like you have to do all of the heavy lifting in your family when it comes to national preservation.
Mosts Christians caution to look at and assess one’s future and future spouse.
Sorry I meant Most
Alcestiseshtemoa – ” I’m biracial”
As I was fully aware.
I did understand that you wanted to have an additional child specifically to be (mostly) of your father’s racial genotype/phenotype (although you initially expressed this as going “either way” between your mothers and fathers respective racial/ethnic lineages – or, as you say, “nationalities”).
My objection was the way in which you proposed to go about achieving that end. I think I was pretty clear in that.
Also, I would note that purity (or 3/4th’s so) of their own racial/ethnic/national lineages seemed to be of little importance to your parents – certainly much less so than their love for one another. So, I would tend to wonder why “restoring” them seems to be of such urgency to you?
alcestiseshtemoa Your parents bloodline only dies if you choose not to raise a child of your own. In other words if you don’t get yourself pregnant and have a child that is ending the bloodline. Don’t let yourself get too caught up in worthless details kid. .
Alcestiseshtemoa – ”I want to preserve my parent’s nation, culture and history and I got desperate and confused.”
Yes.
And, for my part, I was rather harsh with you – especially given that I also knew that you were relatively young, and therefore more prone to “confusion”.
But, I can tell you that although you and I have many disagreements, I do hold you personally, in high regard. I am certain that you are a young women of most excellent moral character (unlike far too many of your contemporaries), and your writing suggests not only high intelligence and a quality education, but also of your ability to think well beyond your limited age. You seem quite a bit more mature and serious than the vast majority of other your age.
Perhaps this is why (and others) don’t treat you with “kid gloves”. But, you should take it as a complement. We actually expect you to be able to think/write/debate on an (older) adult level.
Speaking of which…
”I’m asking God to steer…”
I think if women don’t wake up soon to mens grievances concerning marriage, many of them will not have the option of marriage available to them in the future as more and more men just simply walk away.
@Kiran
The problem is if 40% of women decide to have babies out of wedlock but only 10% of men decide the same (or simply aren’t careful), 40% of women will have babies out of wedlock. Keep it in your pants is excellent advice for/to men, but a disaster for public policy. There will always be men who are too stupid to be deterred by the threat of child support, or who are too poor to extract any wealth from. The more effective the welfare state gets at punishing the fathers, the more the welfare mothers will turn to the stupid and the indigent to father their meal tickets.
Dalrock:
Dr. Warren Farrell accurately summed up the typical Amerobitch attitude toward motherhood: “Choose to abort, or sue for support.” Which, considering that about a third of births are to single mothers; about half of pregnancies end in abortion mills; and women divorce men and take the kids 90% of the time—all pretty clearly demonstrates that American women are incapable of motherhood. Their narcissism and sense of entitlement alone disqualifies them for caring for children; and their anti-male attitudes disqualify them for family life.
Men can help themselves considerably by refusing to have relationships with American women and producing offspring with them. Of course, that won’t stop the Amerobitches from spawning feral, dysfunctional offspring with thugs (they likely will do that anyway); but at least the State has some legitimate power of intervention in those cases.
From Dalrock
The more effective the welfare state gets at punishing the fathers, the more the welfare mothers will turn to the stupid and the indigent to father their meal tickets.
Good to see that after looking at data you have come to the conclusion that women see kids as meal tickets. I bet when you started this blog you never in your life would have believed the stuff you have learned since you started collecting data for your articles.
A lot of times women who get knocked up by thugs will not name him to authorities so they can go after him for child support. They simply say they don’t know the name, or was a one night stand, or some guy named “Jim” she dated briefly. She’ll still be able to collect welfare.
Now a hard-working Beta father, he is always on the hook for support.
One thing everybody can (should) agree on is that men need a safe reliable birth control pill. Women are basically hogging the overwhelming majority of the medical costs in this country. Not only do they outlive men by 4-5 years they use something like 30-40 more health care while men are alive. At the same time, women love to bitch about how men get viagra covered by health insurance (as if that were for men’s pleasure only) but have to pay for their own birth control pills. Looking at it that way, health insurance does not cover male birth control pills either.
+1 Dalrock.
Elizabeth, I understand that you do not want anyone to criticize you or your friends in any way. But that is not how the world works. Sure, trad con web sites can ban disagreement – either by refusing to post criticism & banning critics as one has for a while, or by censoring Blogger comments via deletion as another recently engaged in – but that won’t make the reasoned, thoughtful, sometimes angry critics go away. You don’t convert a man by silencing him, although history is full of churches and states that tried it. And you don’t win people over to your side by bashing them with your god one day and calling them “evil” the next. What would be a good idea would be to acknowledge the ugly reality of marriage law in the US, for a start. Not in a flippant, “oh, well, yes, there’s a problem” manner that has more than a whiff of the college girl in lit-crit class, but in a serious, adult, sober manner. I don’t see trad cons doing that first step.
Traditionalist/conservative people have to come face to face with facts; to continue to live in a fantasy world where every social problem can be solved by men “just manning up” is simply a non-starter. I’ve grown weary of pointing out the same inconvenient facts over and over again to people who seem unable to learn. It is not enough to flippantly acknowledge “some issues” with marriage at one moment, and then turn ’round and once again demand that men should just “man up” and marry in the next. There is a huge blind spot among tradcons regarding the reality of Marriage 2.0, to be blunt. And it’s not getting better. For people who claim to have long memories, trad-cons in my experience don’t seem to be able to use them very well; I should not have to point out the one-sided nature of modern marriage 2.0 contract enforcement over and over and over again, should i? Yet that has to happen every time I attempt to engage any trad con on the topic, even those that I’ve discussed the issue with before. If a group of people can’t get beyond the initial problem statement, if they can’t overcome their own denial that a problem exists, I do not want them as allies, because they are useless since they cannot learn from experience. And the trad-con fantasy that somehow, after a societal collapse, everyone will turn to them for advice is not even worth discussing. It’s on a par with something a teenager might dream up after reading too much apocalyptic science fiction. Yet I keep seeing it here and there – I cannot take seriously any group that entertains such nonsense.
Your cite of Christians and marriage is really not useful, given the fact that evangelical Christians get divorced at essential the same rate as the larger society – 38% vs. 40% – so I really do not see why anyone should take any advice from you on that score seriously at all. You show me a church with a divorce rate that is, oh, under 20% and I will pay attention to what they have to say. As it is, churchianity folks are like a drunk on a bar stool pointing at another drunk and hollering “Hey! You’re drunk!”. It’s not impressive to anyone that is sober.
@Anonymous Reader
Brilliant.
Anon reader, could you give one example of tradcons demanding that men “man up” and marry? Actually whom do you mean by tradcons? Laura Wood from Thinking Housewife? She is not a Evangelical by the way, so you could at least get your facts straight. Laura is a Catholic and for catholics sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin which leads to hellfire. So if a man is a believing Catholic he must either marry or stay celibate. That has nothing to do with the state of the modern church, it’s a matter of faith. I somehow doubt that staying celibate is what most MRAS mean when they talk about marriage strike.
anony mouse, I can provide a couple of examples of tradcons demanding that men “man up” and marry. One would be Laura Woods (not Wood), there was a discussion right here on this site in the last year. Another would be Oz Conservative, although he waffles a bit.
What do I mean by “tradcons”? Why, those people who call themselves “traditionalist” or “traditional conservative”. It’s a varied bunch, from parts of the Republican Party in the US to various writers and bloggers, and onward. Feel free to have a nice, good, old No True Scotsman fallacy-thon if you wish.
I’m aware that Woods is Catholic. Are you going to argue that Evangelicals are not Christians because they are not Catholic? Go ahead, have a good time with that. I cited the Evangelical divorce rate because, among other things, it’s been discussed on this blog.
So if a man is a believing Catholic he must either marry or stay celibate.
I guess that accounts for the divorce … er … “annullment” rate in the US Catholic church? If memory serves, it’s not that far below the divorce rate for Evangelicals, somewhere between 30% and 35% ? I could be wrong about that rate, but I’m not wrong that the Catholic church sells annullments in the US at a pretty high number nowadays compared to 40 years ago.
That has nothing to do with the state of the modern church, it’s a matter of faith. I somehow doubt that staying celibate is what most MRAS mean when they talk about marriage strike.
Since a majority of men in the US are not Catholic, I do not see what your point is. Are you trying to demand that non-Catholics should obey Catholic dogma, or what?
And thanks for a sterling example of exactly what I just wrote at tedious length about, by the way. You come out of the woodwork to attack me, and others, by totally ignoring all the issues raised. Good plan, that’s sure to make me eager to be your allly…
Anon reader if people ask you questions it doesn’t mean that they are out to get you. You write:
“Since a majority of men in the US are not Catholic, I do not see what your point is. Are you trying to demand that non-Catholics should obey Catholic dogma, or what? ” The dogma of sex outside marriage being a mortal sin is actually not only Catholic. Anyone who calls himself Christian is supposed to believe it. My point was that Laura, as a practising Catholic could not possibly approve of sex outside marriage and she had to point out that for a believing Catholic there are only two ways, marriage or celibacy.’I think we could all agree that celibacy is not that attractive for a lot of young men, so this leaves them with one option only. Laura pointed that out in a discussion with other Christians and MRAs got all offended and still keep talking about it. Stating Christian doctrine on sex doesn’t make tradcons misandrist.
As for Evangelicals It is my impression that American Evangelicals are extremely feminised and teach a number of strange doctrines which other churches do not. But Laura and Mark, as Catholics hardly can answer for strange doctrines of American protestants so it’s simply unfair to throw them together.
Concerning divorce rates among Christians, yes it’s a shame. Their murder rate is probably high,too. What does it matter? As a Christian I’m supposed to live according to God’s laws, if some other people call themselves Christian and violate them it hardly gives me license to do the same. Since most MRAs are apparently unbelievers they simply can’t grasp it.
anony-mouse, you appear to be confused. This is not a blog on theology. I note that you have avoided each and every single one of the points that I have raised, once again. This is exactly my point: you trad cons can not, will not, absolutely refuse to come to grips with the reality of what men face in the US today. You are like children who, upon hearing something they do not like, jam their fingers in their ears and start shouting LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
You have not addressed a single issue I raised. Not one. Why is that? Why can’t you discuss reality?
Concerning divorce rates among Christians, yes it’s a shame. Their murder rate is probably high,too. What does it matter? As a Christian I’m supposed to live according to God’s laws, if some other people call themselves Christian and violate them it hardly gives me license to do the same.
I believe that there is something in the Bible about motes and planks. You might try looking that up sometime. I repeat: when you can show me a church that has a divorce rate much lower than the population at large, say, 20% vs. 40%, then I will pay attention. It is nothing but hypocritical for church people to point fingers at the larger society over divorce, when the churched women are clearly just as prone to dump their husbands as any other women. You churchianity people put your own house in order, then come show the rest of us how it is done. You might start by getting your churches to even acknowledge the issue, to stop bashing men for existing, and to quit blindly supporting every feminist, misandric piece of legislation that is proposed. To put it another way, I’m not going to take any advice on how to stop drinking from a bunch of drunks.
Your hypocritical claptrap is not persuasive, impressive, or interesting.
Anon reader, it’s you who are confused. My point was that you can’t accuse Laura Woods and people like her of misandry if they state what traditional Christianity teaches on marriage while addressing other Christians on their blogs. It’s as simple as that. Further, it’s my conviction that MRAs attack traditional Christians because they are unbelievers themselves. You are very narrow minded and prejudiced and it’s impossible to have any sort of dicsussion with a person like you. You attack me as a member of churchianity not knowing anything about me AT ALL. First, I’m not American. Second, in my church those who divorce are excommunicated. So my house in order. The statistics you cite are meanigless to me since in USA nearly everybody claims to be a Christian. The divorce rate of Catholics who attend Tridentine Mass and practise NFP is about 2% btw.
Anon reader, it’s you who are confused. My point was that you can’t accuse Laura Woods and people like her of misandry if they state what traditional Christianity teaches on marriage while addressing other Christians on their blogs.
The problem with this statement is that Woods and other trad cons are proscribing for all men, not just those unfortunately sharing a pew with them. They, like you, wish for all men to obey their Catholic ruleset, even in the face of a misandric culture that treats men as disposable, even in the face of women who obey no rules other than “I want”. . Thus men are to go out and marry, period. If it means that they wind up a few years down the line living in poverty or even in prison because their morally superior wife divorced them on a whim and ran them through the grinder of the divorce industry, eh, well, so what? Not Woods problem. Not your problem either, apparently. Men are being harmed every day – emotionally, financially, even physically – by the varying effects of marriage 2.0 and Woods clearly does not care. Neither do you, so far as I can tell.
If that is not misandry, you tell me what it is. You and Woods and other trad cons are like a bunch of World War I generals, ordering young men to charge machineguns in broad dayllight. If that is not misandry, what is it?
It’s as simple as that. Further, it’s my conviction that MRAs attack traditional Christians because they are unbelievers themselves.
I see, so in your world, anyone who isn’t bowing down before some statue on a Sunday doesn’t deserve any rights at all. Unfortunately for you, the US Constitution doesn’t agree. So you run along and work on your theocracy, the rest of us have some real issues to discuss.
You are very narrow minded and prejudiced and it’s impossible to have any sort of dicsussion with a person like you.
You refuse to acknowledge any problem with modern marriage laws, or that the people in the pews are just as prone to divorce as anyone else, but call me narrow minded? It’s laughable. You demand that every man should live according to your own religion, but I’m prejudiced? Again, laughable. Look, mouse, I’m here to discuss the disaster that has been going on in my country probably longer than you’ve been living. I’m not here to be talked down to by some pipsqueak who wants me to put women on a pedestal or burn stuff in front of pictures.
Why don’t you address marriage 2.0? Why don’t you address the reality of what men face? Because you would rather throw stones at me for not going to your church – because that’s easier than trying to come to grips with the real world, perhaps?
You attack me as a member of churchianity not knowing anything about me AT ALL.
You come in here and refuse to discuss the topic – welfare state, child support, imprisonment of men – and demand that everyone pay attention to your churchianity, that tells me enough; for a start, you are either cluelessly ignorant, or you are yet another tradcon who wants men to be pack mules for women. Either way, it explains why you continue to dodge the real issues that real men have raised here. You’d rather point fingers than try to solve any problem, right?
First, I’m not American.
Ok, where are you. Just the country, please, in order that any claims you make can be tested.
Second, in my church those who divorce are excommunicated. So my house in order.
Assuming your church is Catholic, I’m sure that divorces are nonexistent. But the Catholic church hands out annulments, oh yes, there are thousands every year in the US alone. It’s not “divorce”, though. So via semantic games, you could be correct. But the reality is … not what you claim.
The statistics you cite are meanigless to me since in USA nearly everybody claims to be a Christian. The divorce rate of Catholics who attend Tridentine Mass and practise NFP is about 2%
You seem confused about the Catholic church – I’m sure the divorce rate of the tiny subset of US catholics who do those things is 0%. The annullment rate, however, I’m sure is not 0%, it is higher. Oh, and please provide a cite to support your claim above: tell us all how many Catholics do those things, and how many get annulments per annum.
Now, then, mouse, when will you address my issues? Why do you not have the guts, the courage, to actually write about the topic at hand? Pick something. Go and actually read the article Dalrock worked so hard on, and pick something out, and discuss it. Can you do that?
Why is it that you trad cons have such a problem discussing reality?
anony-mouse, if there is anything I am prejudiced against it is ignorance, white knights, and hypocrites. Trad-cons are fond of talking down to men, as if we are children, yet they are continually surprised to learn about the details of marriage 2.0 (and false rape, and many other issues). That’s ignorance. Trad cons can be counted on to try to stifle debate by refusing to acknowledge just how downright bad women can be. That’s a form of white knighting. Trad cons like you always offer the “solution” of churchianty, yet as the US divorce statistics prove, joining a church is absolutely no protection against being thrown in the divorce grinder at all. To hold up churchianity as a solution, when every church is increasingly feminized, hostile to men and silent on divorce, is hypocritical.
There are my “prejudices”. I’m sure you don’t like any of them. Since you are not in the US, I suggest you learn something about the US divorce machine and marriage 2.0 before commenting on it. Just for a start. And oh yeah, don’t even try to tell anyone here that women are morally superior to men. That’s sure to fly like a balloon made out of lead.
Anon reader I have an idea that you have reading comprehension problems. You also put words into other people”mouthes. You wrote: “They, like you, wish for all men to obey their Catholic ruleset”. Please show me where I stated that all men should obey catholic rules on marriage? Where did I claim that all men have to marry? For the record, I could not care less whether a man who is not even Christian in a foreign country is married or not. Concerning Laura Woods she got unfairly attacked by MRAs for an email exchange where she discussed the Catholic marriage doctrine with a fellow Catholic man. The Bible btw does not demand that men marry, so if a Christian man worries about the divorce he could stay single but he is supposed to be celibate. Now since you are obviously an unbeliever you can screw around to your heart’s content for all I care, but Laura wasn’t adressing men like you.
“see, so in your world, anyone who isn’t bowing down before some statue on a Sunday doesn’t deserve any rights at all. Unfortunately for you, the US Constitution doesn’t agree. So you run along and work on your theocracy,” I could not care less what USA constitution says on any issue whatsoever since I don’t live there. My point was not that atheists should have no rights and I nowhere stated it. My point was that those you call tradcons are Christians addressing other Christians so it’s only logical they rely on the Bible.
“Ok, where are you. Just the country, please, in order that any claims you make can be tested.””
I live in Western Europe and I’m sure that Dalrock can see it on his stats.
“”You refuse to acknowledge any problem with modern marriage laws, or that the people in the pews are just as prone to divorce as anyone else, but call me narrow minded? It’s laughable. You demand that every man should live according to your own religion, but I’m prejudiced?”
You are prejudiced because you have preconceived opinions about those who dare to disagree with you and also about their intentions and motives. I never said there was no problem with modern divorce laws, but the fact stays that if a CHRISTIAN man wishes to father children he has to marry. I never demaned that every man should live according to my religion, either (see above).
“Assuming your church is Catholic, I’m sure that divorces are nonexistent.” I’m not Catholic. I’m Reformed. Those who frivolously divorce are asked to leave the church. So you see I’m not responsible for Catholic annulments. BTW in the statistics I cited I obviously meant annulments not divorces. I think they were from Vox Popoli site but I’m not sure though.
“Trad-cons are fond of talking down to men, as if we are children, yet they are continually surprised to learn about the details of marriage 2.0 (and false rape, and many other issues). That’s ignorance. Trad cons can be counted on to try to stifle debate by refusing to acknowledge just how downright bad women can be. That’s a form of white knighting. ” I can’t answer for others but I’m well aware of those issues. I’m also well aware of the fact that when divorce rules were tightened in my country a couple of years ago liberals, both women and MEN were very upset that they would lose their precious right to divorce at will. As for women being bad a lot of men do not seem any better. In every country and in every period of time men and women deserve each other.
anony mouse
Please show me where I stated that all men should obey catholic rules on marriage? Where did I claim that all men have to marry?
You are here not to discuss the welfare state, not to discuss US law, not to have anything to do with the topic at hand. You are here to defend the undefendable Woods, and therefore having sided with her you get to defend her position.
For the record, I could not care less whether a man who is not even Christian in a foreign country is married or not. Concerning Laura Woods she got unfairly attacked by MRAs for an email exchange where she discussed the Catholic marriage doctrine with a fellow Catholic man.
Maybe someone told you that happened, and maybe you believe them. But it is hogwash, it is false, and someone, somewhere has lied. The whole issue was discussed on this site and if you bothered to read first and post later, you would not make such a foolish claim. .
Here, from last year, is an article that contains many links you can click on to learn something. It would be wise to pick your allies, or at least the fights that other wish for you to partke of, with more care.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/are-men-morally-obligated-to-marry/
Anon reader, I have read the exchange you refer to on Laura’s site, and I have read the post you linked to, also. It would do you good to read the original discussion on Thinking Housewife site, not what somebody said who had read it what it was about in his opinion. I remeber perfectly well that Laura modified her position after some critical responses. Anyway, I ‘d rather have her as ally than men who think they fight feminism by banging sluts they pick up in bars. For Men Going Their Own Way their fixation on women seems strange to say the least. It explains their aversion to Christianity perfectly well, though. Laura has her own faults and I disagree with her on some issues but she tries to be fair to both men and women and has honour and integrity which are foreign words to some of her critics.
Just to clarify, I have read the original post by Laura when it was made, about a year ago, and it could be that I have forgotten some details. I remember her correcting her position on marriage and saying something along the lines that men are under no obligation to marry but should stay celibate if they choose not to. This was in response to a letter by a Catholic reader. However, my original point stands, MRAs often distort the positions of those they disagree with and even the owner of Spearhead got recently accused of being a “socon””and a misandrist on his own site.
If you actually read the posting I pointed to, then you would not make these foolish, unsupported claims. You would not post falsehoods and claim that they are true. What Woods wrote, and what it means, is clear: she demanded that men marry, full stop. She furthermore claimed men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their honor.
Rather than repeat an entire, long, argument, I choose to point to the words of slwerner:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/02/19/a-response-to-the-hysterical-housewife/#comment-73980
You do not seem to actually be able to learn anything, nor do you seem to actually wish to contribute to the discussion. Aside from namecalling, and blindly defending the undefendable Woods, what is your goal?
Oh, and which Reformed church, please? You won’t give anything away by telling exactly the denomination that you belong to, not in the personal realm. But, of course, if you are just making stuff up as you go along – well, you won’t be the first trad-con to do that, Woods is fond of it – then I can understand if you won’t tell. Your silence on a fact that could be used to verify what you say will be most revealing.
Why should I give you any info? It’s not like you told me anything about yourself, right?
My personal realm is none of your business.
Further, here are the words of Laura, from her own mouth: `I do not object to efforts by men to join together and change divorce laws, resist sexual freedom, which is inherently destructive of the family, and protect paternal rights. After all, I have called for presumptive paternal custody. That is the traditional way to prevent female abandonment of marriage.`
And further, this ` Allow me to clarify: I think opposition to marriage is misguided because I think marriage, properly defined and protected is a good social institution which benefits both society and the individuals in the marriage. I do not believe in no-fault divorce, I do not think custody should go presumptively to women, nor do I think alimony should be awarded where a party ends the marriage simply out of a sense of dissatisfaction. I used the term “misguided” because I think the antipathy toward marriage is justified, but on a deeper level – wrong, and hence misguided.`
Sounds like she supports what MRAs call marriage1.0.
The one who cannot learn in this whole story is you, but that doesn´t surprise me at the least. I don´t know if you bother to reply to this and I don´t care, either, because I have better things to do with my life than wasting time on the internet debating the likes of people uncapable of honest discussion.
And as a final comment, this quote from Laura Woods:
“I think it would be great if a significant number of men declined marriage and publicly adopted celibacy as a sign of protest against the feminist assault on marriage and in order to devote themselves to cultural renewal. That would be very effective. But these men would have to stick to the program, declining sex as well as marriage.”
“Sounds like she supports what MRAs call marriage1.0.”
You misunderstand that other men can read Anony Mouse. Whatever Wood’s sounds like to you simply shows your lack of understanding, or as AR has stated, your possible possession of an ulterior motive or agenda. Woods has stated exactly what AR has alluded to, your attempts to spin this message say more about you than anything else.
Your position is dubious and you haven’t a leg to stand on in reality.
“The one who cannot learn in this whole story is you, but that doesn´t surprise me at the least. I don´t know if you bother to reply to this and I don´t care, either, because I have better things to do with my life than wasting time on the internet debating the likes of people uncapable of honest discussion.”
Yawn, when you attempt to persuade others into believing a fallacy which others can clearly recognize for what it is, you simply waste your time. As one of my favorite songs go;
“The Only Fool that you are foolin’ is the fool that is you.”
anony mouse
Why should I give you any info?
In order to support the claims that you have made, such as your claims about the church denomination that you belong to. For example, you claim to be Reformed, thanks to search engines I know that there are several different variations of those churches. You claim to be in Europe, obviously there are a number of countries there. So you could tell us all that you are, oh, “Dutch Reformed, in Netherlands”, for example. That would not enable any cyber stalking, but it would provide those who read here with something to compare your claims against.
You should give the necessary information to make it possible to confirm the truth of what you claim, if you are actually interested in convincing anyone here of the veracity of what you say. If, on the other hand, you are only interested in trolling for flames, looking for an argument in the hopes of obtaining some comments that can be used to “prove” the evil of “MRA’s”, then you don’t have to give any information at all. You can just continue on in the same way that you have for a while.
The choice is yours. Honest discussion, or trolling for flames? You tell us what your actual intent is.
anony mouse, it may well be that Woods supports marriage 1.0, but even if true it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it is impossible for any man in the industrialized world to live in marriage 1.0. It is impossible because marriage 2.0 is institutionalized in the legal system, in far too many churches, in the larger culture.
I note that you have ceased claiming that Woods was speaking only to Christians or to Catholics. Therefore, it appears that you have conceded that Woods elevated herself, in her own mind of course, to a position from which she could proscribe what all men should do. That, if you recall, was the foundation of my earlier point regarding trad-cons and their cluelessness about reality. I will go further and suggest that is is arrogant of Woods to consider herself in possession of sufficient authority to dictate to all men on this, or any other, topic.
In closing, I note that you once again have failed to cite your reference. If you cannot figure out how to operate copy-paste in your browser, please consult the Help webpage for it. Because just quoting words, without including the URL in order that the context may be seen, is not useful.
Thank you for admitting, however tacitly, that you have utterly no interest in the topic of this thread – the blurry line between the welfare state and child support – and that the only thing that matters to you is the pedestaliazation of a non-thinking woman.
Anon reader, you know I promised not to answer any more but I will do it just this time. I’m not in the habit of making things up as you constantly accuse me of doing (probably because you have this habit yourself?). The name of the country where I live has no connection whatsoever to this particular discussion. What is more, it appears on the stats site so that the owner of the site can see it.
Accusing anyone you disagree with of trolling is a way to stop the discussion when there are no arguments left. Specifically, I returned exactly because I have forgotten to cite my references. I found them using exactly the links you provided me with. If you follow the links you will find the particular posts by Laura where those claims were made.
Yes, Laura spoke generally in her post, she should have been more specific. However, you seem to have admitted that she is in favour of restoring the marriage 1.0; and, exactly as I claimed, she said that it would be GREAT if men declined marriage as a protest against feminism.
Marriage laws have changed tremendously and MRAs are right to point it out. However, they seem to think that it was only women’s fault. The truth is that a lot of men support easy divorce, too. Or at least, they do not care. In my country, there is a Christian party which would forbid divorce or make it much harder if they won the election. The number of people who vote for it is 2%. Men make at least about the half of all voters but they don’t seem interested in restoring traditional marriage. The anti-immigration parties poll about 20+% though.
Finally when criticising someone it’s always useful to understand where he is coming from. As I have stated before, for a Christian, there is only one way to have sex and children, according to the Bible, it’s to get married. Otherwise he must stay celibate or at least, try to. Of course, unbelievers don’t fall under the same rules, however, the natural law is for everybody. Screwing around is not good for the society. Bastard children are not good for the society (that’s what some MRAs advocated, too). It’s not hypocritical for Christians to point it out. Anyway, this discussion goes nowhere and it has taken up too much of my time already to continue it.
So I wish you well.
PS. You wrote: “Thank you for admitting, however tacitly, that you have utterly no interest in the topic of this thread – the blurry line between the welfare state and child support – and that the only thing that matters to you is the pedestaliazation of a non-thinking woman.” The topic of discussion changed when somebody (was it not you yourself?) mentioned tradcons being an enemy of men to which I responded by asking in which way exactly they were enemies. Then I was attacked immediately by you, called a misandrist, liar and someone who conspires against all men, in the course of the discussion.
I apologise to the owner of the blog for highjacking the thread. However, protecting somebody’s good name from malicious slander is hardly pedestalisation. MRAs could seek an alliance with tradcons but instead they attack them more viciously than they attack feminists.
The name of the country where I live has no connection whatsoever to this particular discussion.
You made a claim about your country and your church. Now you will not support that claim. Therefore, I do not believe your claim, because you cannot support it with facts.
You claim to post links, but there are no links. Why should I believe you when you will not bother to support anything you say with facts?
Yes, Laura spoke generally in her post, she should have been more specific.
Earlier you claimed she was only writing to fellow Catholics. Thank you for admitting the truth.
However, you seem to have admitted that she is in favour of restoring the marriage 1.0;
As a female supremacist, that is not news. The problem is, in the real world where tradcons fear to tread, marriage 1.0 is impossible, so Woods might as well be in favor of restoring the Holy Roman Empire, or the Assyrian Empire, or some other totally dead and gone civilization.
and, exactly as I claimed, she said that it would be GREAT if men declined marriage as a protest against feminism.
Is that exactly what she said? Or are you making things up again?
Marriage laws have changed tremendously and MRAs are right to point it out.
Gee. Thanks a whole lot. It would have been useful to admit that several days ago.
However, they seem to think that it was only women’s fault.
If you actually bothered to read just this site alone, you would not write such a foolish thing. The history of no-fault divorce, or more correctly “man’s fault divorce” in the US and other parts of the Anglosphere has been discussed here and other places. The roles played by liberals, by feminists, and by trad-cons in enacting Marriage 2.0 are not a secret, although trad-cons are generally without a clue on the topic as you have ably shown.
Finally when criticising someone it’s always useful to understand where he is coming from.
That can be true. Yet you have not bothered to make the slightest effort to understand anything about the topics here. Why is that? Why do you believe that I or anyone else is obliged to pay attention to your ignorant and foolish misunderstandings of the law?
As I have stated before, for a Christian, there is only one way to have sex and children, according to the Bible, it’s to get married. Otherwise he must stay celibate or at least, try to.
According to statistics, Christians in the US divorce almost as much as non-Christians, and as with the larger society, 60% or more of divorces are filed by the wife. Men who are being divorced by their wives are at a higher risk of death from all causes – sickness, accident, suicide, etc. If you had ever bothered to read the article way up at the top, you would see that for many men in the US, getting married is the first step on the road to prison thanks to Marriage 2.0 laws.
Marriage can be a death sentence for men, and you tradcons won’t lift a finger to help.
That’s the bottom line. When traditional conservatives held power in the 60’s and 70’s, they gave feminists every thing demanded so far as divorce, family courts, women’s – only custody, and so forth. Even today, all the feminists have to do is screeth “For The Children” or “Save The Women” and they can count on trad cons to vote their way – case in point, the renewal of the Violence Against Women’s Act which Federally funds feminist centers to teach women how to divorce their husbands under the guise of “sheltering women”. How many trad-con “defenderrs of marriage” will be testifying in Congress against renewal? NONE. How many trad-con politicans will vote against it? So far as I can tell, none. One would think that all the mighty big egos out there that strut around talking about “defending marriage” when it comes to homosexual marriage would spare just one day to try to chip down just a piece of the machine of Marriage 2.0. But it does not happen. Why? Gosh, Mr. Know-it-All, you tell me…
I do not know if trad cons really hate men as much as the feminists they ally with do or not, but it sure looks that way.
PS. You wrote: “Thank you for admitting, however tacitly, that you have utterly no interest in the topic of this thread – the blurry line between the welfare state and child support – and that the only thing that matters to you is the pedestaliazation of a non-thinking woman.” The topic of discussion changed when somebody (was it not you yourself?) mentioned tradcons being an enemy of men to which I responded by asking in which way exactly they were enemies.
You are really pathetic. Go find where I stated that tradcons were enemies. You can’t find it, because it is not there, the thread is right above these words. I stated that tradcons are ignorant and you have indeed verified that.
Then I was attacked immediately by you, called a misandrist, liar and someone who conspires against all men, in the course of the discussion.
Show me where I made such statements. Post the URL’s right here. It seems to me you are very fond of dishing out namecalling, but not so good at reason, or reading carefully for that matter.
I apologise to the owner of the blog for highjacking the thread. However, protecting somebody’s good name from malicious slander is hardly pedestalisation.
In the US, slander has a clear meaning and nothing that I have written here comes even close to the definition. But please, do prove me wrong, by citing US law. You can start with the US Supreme Court decision “Sullivan vs. NY TImes” and work out from there.
It is clear that you want all men to bow down before your goddes Woods, to kneel before her pedestal and worship her. It will not happen.
MRAs could seek an alliance with tradcons but instead they attack them more viciously than they attack feminists.
In this thread, you have attacked me multiple times, and never once criticized feminism in any real way. The irony is very deep. But it is typical, from a tradcon.
Buddy, here is the challenge I issue to tradcons: lead in the fight against feminism, or follow the righteously angry men in the fight, or just get out of the way and quit biting men’s ankles. You know what? I have not yet found a tradcon who will lead, or will follow, but man alive, are you people good at ankle-biting. As has been demonstrated yet again in this thread.
Hello, everyone. I am a female paying child support. My daughter’s aunt & uncle have temp. custody of her. The aunt/uncle are very well off and I’m poor (which is why they were basically able to steal my daughter right out from under me). Because of some law (don’t know if it’s a state or federal law), they are able to receive medicaid and cash assistance (400 bucks a month) even though they make way over the income limit of these programs. So, the state came after me for child support. I can’t pay it… I think it’s been about a month since I last made a payment. I’m supposed to pay $35 a week, but was only able to send $10 last time. It makes me so angry because the aunt/uncle have a nice house, several vehicles and everything they could want, and I just cannot get ahead with all this child support I’m expected to pay. Even before I lost my job (layoff due to economy), I could not afford to save any money, get my own place, or anything. It’s just terrible. And now I’m afraid that I’m probably going to end up in jail. The state of DE takes all of your money except for $800 a month. $800 is what they expect you to be able to live on. I truly know what you men are going through, and I feel horribly for you all. There needs to be some sort of reform of this system. Families who make over a certain income level should NOT be able to receive welfare.
Also.. for those moms that are really financially eligible for welfare, I think they should be responsible for paying at least half of that back to the state.
ps — I should also mention that along with the $35 I was paying when i had a job, I was also paying almost $80 a WEEK for insurance that I was forced to get on my daughter by the state… even though she was on medicaid. The aunt/uncle never used my insurance the entire time (years) that I had it, but I was still forced to keep & pay for it.
Pingback: Why won’t these Peter Pan manboys man up and marry aging flighty selfish career gal sluts already? | Dalrock
Is this horrendous site for real? I thought it must be a joke, but now I’m not sure.
Pingback: The missing fear | Dalrock
I have six daughters and only one is aided by afdc but my two younger daughters fathercus living in the home with us cause we r still together y does he have to pay child supporr
the fact of the matter is the pussy better be worth it because you all know forehand what you are doing and if you knowingly take that risk and have kids then if you have to kill yourself and sell your organs to pay child support then so be it. stop being a deadbeat, you had the sex didn’t you? you knew the risks. i am a grandfather who has adopted his grandson from his son as he cant handle responsibility and i also have a daughter with 2 minority children living with me bill free as her so called man don’t do shit but cry how hard life is. there is only one way to solve this issue for good. put birth control in the drinking water and make people pass a test to have kids. you need a lic. to drive, a lic. to go fishing, a lic. to sell real estate, a lic. to open a business but any freaking moron can have a child, simply make them pass a test composed of 3 parts, 1; credit check 2. do they own a home they can raise the child in. 3 a drug abuse test. if they pass all 3 they would qualify to see a doctor to get the anti birth control then allowing them to have children.
imagine a world with no rape victim children, no unwanted births, no stupid sluts out there getting drunk and coming home pregnant. no need for abortion. i don’t know I’m just sick of hearing whinny men who are probably gay and in the closet cry cause they can afford their responsibilities. a manly man hasnt that problem. man up dudes or turn gay and be done.
The tax payer pays more then me , last month I sent in 2,525.00 from my pay check but the county got 5,050$ becuase the 2$ insentive from the government ….. Tax payer dollars to the county For collecting the childsupport , I’m a tax payer too but I don’t count I have no rights as a man father or a human becuase arrears were placed upon me . I have already paid over 230,000$ since 1993 for a 97,000 obligation n they call it arrears , geniuses way to extort $$$ with a cute name to it Childsupport ….. Title 4-d ! Check it out…
fariah says:
November 28, 2011 at 4:22 pm
To the kitchen with you Lassie – There WILL be SAMMICHES!
Pingback: The blurry line between the welfare state and child support |
My partner is paying so much maintenance because he works that we can’t afford to put food on the table for my 9 year old child and so I’m for ex to degradingly rely on food vouchers on which I’m told you can only get help with twice and that’s it the system for struggling fathers is all wrong and they don’t give a flying F because it’s a money spinner for the gorilla run government we have
From what i’m understanding men are so worried about the mothers not being ” Happy” or so worried about the mothers spending money on others men that they fail to take care of their own responsibility, you can still be married have children & get divorced each parent still have to do what they have to do for the kids.
I just love how even this article that is support to be against the child support system automatically judges the Father. With comments like the “missing parent” and “parents mistakes”. 99% of the time the father has nothing to do with those mistakes and all land squarely with the mother. But even this article basically demonizes the father and props up the mother onto a pedestal that they do not deserve in any way, period.
I would like to see more emphasis on the financial responsibilities of motherhood. I am a divorced mother of 2. I work and am paid very well. My ex and I split the time with the kids and share 50/50 in their expenses. I have lost all respect for most single moms. They alienate the children from their fathers, and accuse them relentlessly of that which they themselves are guilty of…not providing sufficient financial resources to their children. It’s unhealthy for the children and society. Let’s feel free to call out dead beat moms when the situation is appropriate. And let’s applaud good dads and moms who meet their whole obligations to their kids…that is time spent nurturing them, AND providing for them to the best of their abilities. Moms can and should work. Sitting home for 18 years without a job and without developing ones skills is not good mothering if it means the kids don’t have “enough” or if it means the relationship with the dad is damaged or destroyed.
Moms can and should work. Sitting home for 18 years without a job and without developing ones skills is not good mothering if it means the kids don’t have “enough” …
“Enough” of what? Food? Clothing? Material possessions? Money? Whatever the Joneses next door have?
The “enough” that most parents should be concerned about for their children is love, attention, nurturing, and guidance. For some reason that doesn’t seem to make it onto most parents’ list of Top Five, or even Top Twenty priorities. Even most “Christian” parents today are far more concerned with living up to the world’s expectations (i.e., careers, UMC income, living in the “right” neighborhood, having “right” friends and social connections) than God’s.
or if it means the relationship with the dad is damaged or destroyed.
Since you volunteered that you’re divorced, would you care to share with us what led to the breakup of your marriage to the father of your children?
Yeah women better smarten up Vasagel is coming ladies. Who will they go after when they cant go after us men??? Your A$$!
My ex..filed.for welfare illegally.and got 3000…before they found out ..now there after my license..if she commits..fraud how can they still come after me.?why is it not on her?