|
|
|
|
|
| | Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of viewPage 8 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) |
(CS) Behind each baby there is a man and a woman who had sex. Aren't BOTH consenting adults responsible here? (Cap) Nope.... ever heard of a sperm bank, Einstein? (CS) So you are telling me that the majority of your statistics come from women who used sperm bank? (Cap) I was simply rebutting your statement
Wow. Are you that desperate to find something, anything wrong with your adversaries' writings?
And here you did it again with ohwhynot:
(OhWN) the mere fact that you refer to assisting in raising your own children as a "second job" provides fodder for the argument that those who remain at home do indeed work, and contribute to the household, even if they don't have a check to deposit each week. Hey, I was a SAHM, now I work; it is easier going to work; more freedom, and they pay me! Since you never did it, though, how would you know how onerous & difficult it is? (Cap) Never did what? Be a SAHM? Of course not, I don't even have a vagina, to begin with
Is your ego so fragile, are you so insecure, that it becomes that important for you to "win" an "argument", to the point where you'll go this far to find any scrap you can refute? 
Is it a feeble attempt at misdirection to get you out of a tight spot in a debate your are loosing, or are you going to pretend it's your "humor" and you aren't purposely trying to use dishonest rhetoric? Either way, you've made your lack of arguments very clear.  | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/21/2010 3:42:01 PM | (CS) So, Jack, are you saying that there is no more societal expectations on genders today in the 21st century, then?
In an ideal world, yes, that's what I'd be saying.
However, I am only too painfully aware that we don't live in a fair/ideal world (for proof of that, we need look no further than me not being Supreme Emperor of Everything... but, I digress)
However again, it's rather sad that there seems to be so much argument in favour of nudge-nudge-wink-wink when it comes to dealing with women and their issues. I find the condescending, "Women can't be expected to be responsible, like men are!" attitude to be quite discouraging, not to mention downright insulting to women.
Jack | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/21/2010 3:50:46 PM | LOL a list I found written by a woman it seems!! Just as viable as some other contrived agenda.
Well, I had some fun putting together my counterpoint: The Female Privileges Checklist.
Female Privilege List
Privileges I have as a woman, that "others" - mostly men - don't have.
1. I’m under less pressure than others to engage in risky, dangerous and unhealthy behaviors - one of the reasons I get to live longer than others do.
2. I can choose professions that are less lucrative, and not be called a loser.
3. If I don’t rise to the top of my profession, it’s OK – people won’t judge me the less for it.
4. I’m entitled to the benefits of a safe, orderly society, but no one expects me to risk my personal safety to maintain it.
5. I have the right to have the overwhelming majority of personal risk suffered in defense of my country handled by others.
6. I’m allowed to avoid violence, and even run from it, without the risk I’ll be laughed at.
7. If I see someone else in danger, I’m allowed to stop and think carefully about my personal risk before saving them, without my courage being called into question.
8. I have the right to avoid risky, dangerous challenges, and not be called a coward.
9. I’m allowed to cry as a child and tell my parents I’m scared of something - my parents won't be disappointed with me.
10. I have the right to have most of the really dangerous professions handled by others.
11. If I commit a crime, I get less jail time than others would get for the exact same crime.
12. When I find myself with others in a terrifying, life-threatening situation, I have the right to be evacuated first, once the children are safe. Others can wait.
13. If I get slaughtered as part of some atrocity, people will be especially outraged and will call particular attention to the fact I was slaughtered. When others are slaughtered, it isn't quite as upsetting.
14. I have the right to give my child up for adoption, and thus totally repudiate any personal and financial responsibilities I might otherwise have.
15. I can choose whether I want to be a parent or not, knowing that society will compel the other parent to meet their financial responsibilities - whether they want to or not.
16. If I am personally attacked, I expect otherwise safe, otherwise uninvolved people to come to my defense.
17. If I see someone else being attacked, I’m not expected to risk my own safety to defend them. It's OK for me to wait for others to intervene, and it’s also OK for me to criticize others if they don’t.
18. In any dispute involving custody, I’m granted the presumption that I am the better, safer parent.
19. I have the right to interact with children not my own, and not have people look at me suspiciously.
20. If I choose to become a parent, people understand if I want to focus entirely on the personal, day-to-day care and nurturing of my children. Society expects my spouse to make enough money to make this choice possible.
21. I can get real nasty when someone makes me mad, and call them ugly, a loser, a nerd, a geek, a disgusting creep, a revolting little worm, a worthless piece of garbage, a scum bag, a wimp, a pervert, a jerk-off, an old fart, or a fat slob. After all, I have the right not to be treated meanly at work, and the right not to hear harsh things that might make me uncomfortable. I have legal recourse if that right is not respected, and I have the right to make this perfectly clear on my job interview.
22. I’m allowed to embrace and cultivate my spiritual qualities, and adopt a more elevated and more refined view of life - because other people handle all the "dirty work" like: yard work, garbage hauling, construction, fishing, mining, sewage disposal, street cleaning, long distance trucking, baggage handling, painting, sandblasting, and cement work.
23. If I fail at something, I can go to college and study the historical forces and social constructs that make it harder for people like me. If others fail, it’s because they just don’t have what it takes.
24. If I fail at almost everything, I can always teach college courses that explain why people like me fail a lot.
Please acknowledge http://sweatingthroughfog.blogspot.com/ when forwarding or copying this list
Like I said.
BOTH genders are responsible.
Both genders are responsible for everything in the same and equal manner?
Or is there female privilege where the mother is entitled to not have to work and the father is legally required to do so to provide the finacial responsibilities....
Like Cappy who has had 50/50 shared parenting with his ex...the mother of his children and while working full time..??? and paying child support to his ex who is was working part time or not working.....female privilege....or is that both parents being responsible in CS view....or will he suggest the problem is the "cultural values about gender" is the reason the woman is unable to fully realize her potential of being a responsible participating individual....and the blame is no doubt society...and not the individuals own lack of respect.
But you are right there are many woman who still expect the guys to be traditional in paying for dates and anything else.
LOL...CS....you really need to stop treating woman like they are in need of help at every corner. | |
|
| |
| |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/21/2010 7:34:24 PM |
LOL a list I found written by a woman it seems!! Just as viable as some other contrived agenda.
Your source, http://sweatingthroughfog.blogspot.com/, mentions that the author is a man, not a woman. See profile, here: http://www.blogger.com/profile/07138602196953744517
This being said, actually, I like this list, and it is just as valid as a tool for reflection on women's privileges as the other one is for men. Unlike you, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge privileges where there are, including when they are on the other side, too. For instance :
I’m under less pressure than others to engage in risky, dangerous and unhealthy behaviors - one of the reasons I get to live longer than others do.
Yes, men do have a society pressure to appear "tough" and take these risks; women enjoy having less pressure to do the same. Of course, one of the reason for this is that men are more likely to measure their "manhood" with whether or not they are strong and tough, and even teach this to their boys through the "boy code" I have mentioned before. I am glad you are starting to get it, Teal.
I can choose professions that are less lucrative, and not be called a loser.
Oh god, I laughed so hard at this I near peed in my pants. Teal, you spent HOURS and dozens of messages just in the past month doing EXACTLY that - calling women a loser for choosing professions that are less lucrative! Remember our argument regarding the gender gap, that you deny exists because "women chose it" ? LOL
If I don’t rise to the top of my profession, it’s OK – people won’t judge me the less for it.
This is quite true, I'd say.
I’m entitled to the benefits of a safe, orderly society, but no one expects me to risk my personal safety to maintain it.
I have the right to have the overwhelming majority of personal risk suffered in defense of my country handled by others.
I would imagine these both refers to the military / conscription laws. It is still today very true, because even if in practice, women are now welcomed in the armed force, they are very under represented, at least to my knowledge.
I’m allowed to avoid violence, and even run from it, without the risk I’ll be laughed at.
If I see someone else in danger, I’m allowed to stop and think carefully about my personal risk before saving them, without my courage being called into question.
I have the right to avoid risky, dangerous challenges, and not be called a coward.
This is *very* true and quite important points. Why are men expected to confront violence? Isn't that privilege a direct consequence of what boys are taught, again, in our society through the boy code?
I’m allowed to cry as a child and tell my parents I’m scared of something - my parents won't be disappointed with me.
This is so critical I have put it in bold. Crying and asking for help are emotional keys to a child healthy psychological development. To prevent children from expressing their fears and strong emotions, on the belief that "boys don't cry", is HURTING generations of men, and has been hurting them for DECADES. It has to stop, so that this privilege may stop; but more importantly, so that men can benefit from fully adequate psychological nurturing and growth as children and access the full array of communication, empathy, anger management and listening skills as adults. Thank you for pointing out this privilege, Tealwood.
I have the right to have most of the really dangerous professions handled by others. I am not sure this one is true. At least not as a right; perhaps more as an expectation; and certainly less and less true today. As a side note, by the way, the reason this privilege is receding today is not because men fought to remove it; but rather because women fought to remove it. They *asked* for their right to work in dangerous environment where previously only men were allowed.
If I commit a crime, I get less jail time than others would get for the exact same crime.
I don't know if this one is supported or not by the facts; I have never researched it. It would be interesting to double check it. If true, this must stop.
When I find myself with others in a terrifying, life-threatening situation, I have the right to be evacuated first, once the children are safe. Others can wait.
If I see someone else being attacked, I’m not expected to risk my own safety to defend them. It's OK for me to wait for others to intervene, and it’s also OK for me to criticize others if they don’t.
This is very true, and it is called positive discrimination. Most feminists fought against positive discrimination as being very condescending, as it outlines how "fragile" and "precious" women are. There might have been, in term of survival of the species, perhaps a reason for this; since one male could in theory impregnate many women; but only one women can have one baby? I am not sure. But today, this has no more place and this favoritism should be eliminated.
If I get slaughtered as part of some atrocity, people will be especially outraged and will call particular attention to the fact I was slaughtered. When others are slaughtered, it isn't quite as upsetting.
Exactly, this is also a clear women privilege and a perfect example of what a privilege is in a society. A men's life is just as important as a women's life and ANY death is horrible, regardless of gender.
I have the right to give my child up for adoption, and thus totally repudiate any personal and financial responsibilities I might otherwise have.
Unless the father's name is on the certificate, at which point women can no longer do this. And if a father knows he is the father, he can force an ADN test to prove it, and the women can no longer give the baby to adoption. Unless I am wrong, can someone confirm this?
I can choose whether I want to be a parent or not, knowing that society will compel the other parent to meet their financial responsibilities - whether they want to or not.
True. Men can choose to use condom; but once there is a baby, that decision is no longer theirs. Unfortunately, changing this leads to enormous ethical problems, so right now I beleive this is, as unfair a it is (and clearly a women privilege) the best we can do. I don't see how we can force a woman to abort, that would be quite inhuman, and would raise even bigger ethical problems.
If I am personally attacked, I expect otherwise safe, otherwise uninvolved people to come to my defense.
Everyone should land a hand to anyone in danger. In reality, very few people do so, even for women. But if you are a woman, you are more likely to be "rescued". Look at how many HUNDREDS of cartoon, Disney and all, always picture the woman as a princess to be rescued by the man! It is passed into the cultural background and certainly became part of the manhood code. We have to fight against this, and ally with the feminists who are also fighting this very privilege, too.
In any dispute involving custody, I’m granted the presumption that I am the better, safer parent.
Yes, this is true today, and probably is at the root of much of the reason why the courts are still biased in favor of women today. On the flip side, this is a direct consequence from the society men themselves have established many decades ago, as it was decided that child-rearing is not something men should know or do. At a time when marriage meant the men was working and the women were doing laundry, taking care of children and waiting their men with a good dinner ready... men wanted nothing to do with children and child rearing. We still live the heavy consequence of this today.
I have the right to interact with children not my own, and not have people look at me suspiciously.
A direct consequence of the fact that most pedophiles are men, not women. This is why for instance, a big sister is allowed to help a boy, but big brothers are only allowed to help boys, not girls. And it's really sad and unfair and this should also be changed.
If I choose to become a parent, people understand if I want to focus entirely on the personal, day-to-day care and nurturing of my children. Society expects my spouse to make enough money to make this choice possible.
This is the other side of the very same coin we have been discussed here, and the very reason of the gender gap. Remember my other post? Nope, it's not just "a choice". Because that's just it: there is a pressure here. As for men, that pressure is also there, but reversed: if men choose to focus entirely on the personal, day-to-day care and nurturing of their children, they'll find people to tell them they aren't "manly" enough, aren't being "financially responsible", are "abusing the welfare system", etc..
I can get real nasty when someone makes me mad, and call them ugly, a loser, a nerd, a geek, a disgusting creep, a revolting little worm, a worthless piece of garbage, a scum bag, a wimp, a pervert, a jerk-off, an old fart, or a fat slob. After all, I have the right not to be treated meanly at work, and the right not to hear harsh things that might make me uncomfortable. I have legal recourse if that right is not respected, and I have the right to make this perfectly clear on my job interview.
I am unclear about what the author intended regarding this. Is the author trying to make "being sexually harassed at work" into a woman's privilege?!?
I’m allowed to embrace and cultivate my spiritual qualities, and adopt a more elevated and more refined view of life - because other people handle all the "dirty work" like: yard work, garbage hauling, construction, fishing, mining, sewage disposal, street cleaning, long distance trucking, baggage handling, painting, sandblasting, and cement work. ...while women change these diapers several times every day for years; become maid who clean up other people's dirt, or even sell their body & sexual favors to make money? Seems to me that there is a lot of dirty work in both genders. And yes, for each gender stereotype, it's a privilege not to be expected to do the other side's dirty jobs...
If I fail at something, I can go to college and study the historical forces and social constructs that make it harder for people like me. If others fail, it’s because they just don’t have what it takes.
Both genders can go and study social and historical forces. And what they will discover is not different whether the student is male or female. But it is true that women fail for many social reasons that men do not have in play against them. It's a male privilege; the flip side of that coin being that at least you've got your excuse cut out for you, in terms of perception. Still, I'd rather have the privilege of not failing, than the privilege of having an excuse when I fail.
If I fail at almost everything, I can always teach college courses that explain why people like me fail a lot.
Isn't that what Bush does for a living now? *evil grin*
But you are right there are many woman who still expect the guys to be traditional in paying for dates and anything else.
Yes, it has to stop. And, on the reverse side of that same coin, men must stop to do these things and stop thinking that their manhood, attractiveness and virility depends on it.
| |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/21/2010 8:32:20 PM |
... and, what, because I have never been, nor ever could have been, a SAHM, I cannot know anything about what it's like to raise kids
I never said you knew nothing about raising kids, and, taken in context, my words were used to portray my contention that there is a difference between choosing to, or having the option of helping out, and raising a child alone, and there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between choosing between the options one has, and choice alone. Conveniently, the notion that men & women each have a choice, when it comes to producing a child, has once again been thrown by the wayside. A woman who carries a pregnancy to term may well be choosing the only option available to her, for various and personal reasons. A man, knowing full well that only a woman can get pregnant, and only a woman can have an abortion, exercised his option when he undressed. Argue all you want, but it really is that simple. Attempting to "trap" a man by purposely becoming pregnant is very different from the scenario I believe that most find themselves caught up in. I am sick to death of the consistent portrayal of what is strictly biological difference referred to as "feminist mantra"; it has nothing at all to with feminism or fairness & everything to do with body parts. Admit it & get on with intelligent conversation that deals in facts, already.
Likewise, to state that women "choose" lower paying jobs is different from acknowledging that women have lower paying job options. For the cp, that is often the fact. If I were able to earn more than I earn now & work less hours, enabling me to spend more time with my family, I think that not doing so would make me an irresponsible parent. I find it sad that such a high value be placed on the amount of time one spends away from home, whether they have children or not.
As far as your mentioning, capitano, that your boys ask why girls are given "special" treatment at school, well, frankly, I think it likely that their perception comes from you. Abundant are the studies showing that children, particularly girls, benefit from same sex education. Why? Because teachers give more attention to male students. The relatively small number of students who benefit from special education are more than twice as likely to be boys than girls.
In any case, none of this has much to do with the discussion of step parents & their responsibility to the children they may choose to parent. It is the responsibility of every parent to care for their child. I do believe, and have seen that those who genuinely care for their children, whether they be by biology or otherwise, continue to do so outside of a failed relationship (even you, capitano!). Love & the existence of conscious are the likely initiators. The impediment of the vindictive ex may make it harder, but the vast majority are not out to force an uninvolved third party to provide for children. I am still not convinced that cs be enforced upon everyone who chooses to marry a single parent, but there do seem to be valid arguments on both sides of the issue. I assume that each case is viewed on its individual merits, and once again it hits me that, were people not so selfish, there would be no need to "force" anything upon anyone; we would all do the right thing by our children, however they came to be so. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/21/2010 9:22:55 PM | Conveniently, the notion that men & women each have a choice, when it comes to producing a child, has once again been thrown by the wayside.
First off, I'm going to do my best to keep to the OP on this, but I have to respond to a couple of points.
To the above statement: Men and women have a choice to have sex with each other. Each have a choice to use BC. Men need to be responsible for their sperm. Women need to be responsible for their eggs.
But, only women can produce a child from the irresponsible behaviour of one or both people who contribute their respective 23 chromosomes.
Attempting to "trap" a man by purposely becoming pregnant is very different from the scenario I believe that most find themselves caught up in.
Well, I'm gonna go on the record to say that I believe that women having intentional "oops" pregnancies in order to "trap" men is a rather small percentage of the reasons women have intentional "oops" pregnancies. I believe women have intentional "oops" pregancies because they want to get pregnant and like the plausible deniability of Fate having been the determining factor in how they got pregnant independent of what the man thinks or feels. Most of the time, the guy just turns them on and they think he has decent enough genetics.
Likewise, to state that women "choose" lower paying jobs is different from acknowledging that women have lower paying job options. For the cp, that is often the fact. If I were able to earn more than I earn now & work less hours, enabling me to spend more time with my family, I think that not doing so would make me an irresponsible parent. I find it sad that such a high value be placed on the amount of time one spends away from home, whether they have children or not.
That is such a copout and very typical of how many women see the world.
Why didn't you go to school, get an education and a career before you had kids? So many women start squirting out kids before they can even support themselves. Having kids should happen AFTER people have a life. It should not be the REASON for having a life.
Women have every opportunity to make as much money and to have careers as successful as any man, but they choose to have relationships and kids before they do what they need to do for themselves in order to ensure that they can live the lives they need to live.
Men have nothing to do with women's choices. It's one of the primary tenets of feminist thought, right?
As far as your mentioning, capitano, that your boys ask why girls are given "special" treatment at school, well, frankly, I think it likely that their perception comes from you.
Feel free to believe this if you must.
Abundant are the studies showing that children, particularly girls, benefit from same sex education. Why? Because teachers give more attention to male students.
Of course. Same sex education will benefit either sex because it can account for the differences in learning styles between the sexes.
However, the public co-ed education system, the most popular system, is geared for girls and doesn't seem to account for boys' learning styles adequately at all. More boys drop out than girls, boys achieve lower grades, fewer boys win scholarships and fewer boys go on to post-secondary education....
... must be because boys are stupid and/or inadequate, right? Those things couldn't have anything to do with the inherent bias of the educational system...
... of course, CS would have us believe that it's because men teach their sons all the wrong things, like a mystical patriachal "code" of some sort, which causes them to have dysfunctional thoughts, leading to dysfunctional lives.....
In any case, none of this has much to do with the discussion of step parents & their responsibility to the children they may choose to parent.
Exactly. I've been sent to Banned Camp numerous times for getting off topic in the slightest, but I just had to respond to you post.
Cheers.
Oh, yeah.... and to keep this post on topic...
I don't think ANY kid should be thrown to the wayside, but I really don't think any man should be thrown into the oncoming traffic either.
Cheers. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/21/2010 9:52:39 PM |
But, only women can produce a child from the irresponsible behaviour of one or both people who contribute their respective 23 chromosomes
But that is only true if every woman believes as you do, that the child is not produced at the moment of conception. Even those who do believe that may be unable, on an emotional level, to abort, or give up a child to someone else. That is reality.
Well, I'm gonna go on the record to say that I believe that women having intentional "oops" pregnancies in order to "trap" men is a rather small percentage of the reasons women have intentional "oops" pregnancies. I believe women have intentional "oops" pregancies because they want to get pregnant and like the plausible deniability of Fate having been the determining factor in how they got pregnant independent of what the man thinks or feels. Most of the time, the guy just turns them on and they think he has decent enough genetics.
Then you will go on record as the man who has a very low opinion of women, and who knows not the difference between a woman and a girl.
Why didn't you go to school, get an education and a career before you had kids? So many women start squirting out kids before they can even support themselves. Having kids should happen AFTER people have a life. It should not be the REASON for having a life.
Women have every opportunity to make as much money and to have careers as successful as any man, but they choose to have relationships and kids before they do what they need to do for themselves in order to ensure that they can live the lives they need to live.
Men have nothing to do with women's choices. It's one of the primary tenets of feminist thought, right?
I did. Having kids happens DURING people's lives, as a part of, not after one has lived! Every opportunity involves costs, and it is up to the individual and couple to perform cost/benefit analysis. I am well aware that each person's experiences color their opinions, but you seem to lump all women together. I CAN earn more money, work more hours. I can choose to sacrifice beneficial time with my children to make more money, even though there is no one to take up the slack. It's about priorities. Lest we forget that for many, many divorced women, the decision to forgo the years of work experience, the result of which is reduced income upon finding oneself in a cp situation, was not made alone. I know nothing of the feminist mentality, as I do not identify myself as a feminist. I do, however, identify myself as a parent, and set my priorities accordingly. The truth is, the vast majority of employers see women similarly, so, no they do not have every opportunity, blah, blah, blah, as you assert. In any case, women do not have these relationships with themselves. When was the last time you heard a man say "oh, no, let's not, you have to do what you need to do for yourself in order to ensure that you live the life you need to live"? Crap! Men have nothing to do with relationships? Really?! Crap!
However, the public co-ed education system, the most popular system, is geared for girls and doesn't seem to account for boys' learning styles adequately at all. More boys drop out than girls, boys achieve lower grades, fewer boys win scholarships and fewer boys go on to post-secondary education....
... must be because boys are stupid and/or inadequate, right? Those things couldn't have anything to do with the inherent bias of the educational system...
Interesting, isn't it, that the abundance of studies show that teachers favor boys, cater to them, yet they can't even seem to graduate or get college degrees, yet they obtain higher paying jobs? How is that possible? Interesting that women have kids before finishing their education, fail to seize opportunity, yet men "choose" higher paying jobs, which, using your logic, women should get? Ain't we sweet? You contradict yourself. Perhaps you should put down that glass.  | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/22/2010 2:29:17 AM | So are woman being held down or being disadvantaged because of their gender or simply their choice in a degree and educational interest and pursuing careers that ultimately do not have the higher wage compensation?~Tealwood~
^^^Your off-topic Tealwood....However...bringing this discussion back to the OP, I might agree with you that my decisions about continuing on with my education and pursuing my career would have been the "smart" thing to do....But who has a crystal ball?
I would never have predicted my husband would screw the neighbour, move in with her..break-up with her and wind up paying her more money in child support for her kids than my EX ever paid me for our (bio) kids.... I am sure you can understand, that at that point my personal goals took a backseat to my children being priorities?
Not even going into the arguement or discussion demonstrated or illustrated by custodial men working full time compared to custodial woman working full time and part time....
Individuals earn income or remuneration based on career choices that are defined as well by the educational choices they made.~Tealwood~
^^^^You are a bitter man Tealwood..It is okay to admitt your human and pissed off y'know! Your not perfect....not even close..
You got stuck with the majority of the burden's that come with raising kids....your Ex isn't a poster parent....you still had choices...they are different than some of the one's single Mom's make...I also suspect that you didn't have to give birth in your 1st year of Unniversity did you?
Perhaps you enjoyed the birth of a child without a career interuption?.....Yet still didn't take a pause for your kids when you became a primary parent....tsk...tsk....I am sure though that the soccer coaches and gymnastic teachers were good substitutions for your absence...after all you paid good money for those people to raise your kids right?
My daughter's father has seen her once...yet my boyfriend of a couple years seems to have gladly taken on the responsibility of being her Dad...including providing for her finacially (with life ins and medical)...go figure....BUT....for some reason he knew what he was getting into by dating me....perhaps that was his CHOICE to get involved with me?
I have already lived a very eventful life and have actually experienced alot of what these forum titles seem to be about..I have a perspective from all angles....but I am not complaining...I am done explaining....but I am not finished voicing my opinions or making the occassional comments to those who seem to be making a work-out of bending backwards to smooch their own arsehole!
I find it amusing Tealwood that you would actually agree with Capitano on issues that will eventually affect your daughters...If the attitude that alot of men (it would seem) have continues on, by teaching their children to perpetuate a very outdated stigma about women....nothing will change.
I have to ask Tealwood, after reading the posts from capitano and what he teaches his sons about women...how would you feel about one of your daughters bringing home one of his son's to meet you? | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/22/2010 7:36:34 AM | But that is only true if every woman believes as you do, that the child is not produced at the moment of conception. Even those who do believe that may be unable, on an emotional level, to abort, or give up a child to someone else. That is reality.
Not sure where you were going with this. It takes 46 chromosomes for conception... 23 from the male, 23 from the female. Once conception is achieved, it's still only the woman who, barring anything wrong, can bring a child into the world....
.... this is a fact that women never let any man forget.
Then you will go on record as the man who has a very low opinion of women, and who knows not the difference between a woman and a girl.
Not sure why you have a problem with my statement. I really don't believe many women get pregnant to trap guys.
When was the last time you heard a man say "oh, no, let's not, you have to do what you need to do for yourself in order to ensure that you live the life you need to live"?
Again, not sure why you have a problem with my statement about women getting their life together and trying to ensure they have all their ducks in a row BEFORE they get married and have kids. Why is that so offensive? Why would it matter one why or another whether a guy says the above or not? Women are quite capable of making their own decisions, aren't they?
And, yes, when women stay home after they have a kid, it does mean that she won't be gaining seniority, experience and money. This is one of the reasons that women make less in a lifetime than men do. However, I'd like to see some stats on how many women would really prefer to return to work to stay at home with the kid while the husband brings home the resources. I really don't think it would be the majority. I think the vast majority would prefer to stay home with the kid(s), but I've never seen any stats on it.
Crap! Men have nothing to do with relationships? Really?! Crap!
Well, still don't know where I said men don't have anything to do with relationships with women....
... though many would be smart to avoid them, if possible....
Interesting, isn't it, that the abundance of studies show that teachers favor boys, cater to them, yet they can't even seem to graduate or get college degrees, yet they obtain higher paying jobs?
Well, I'd like to see all those studies you've been reading saying boys are catered to in the current public education system, including university/college. If you could, make those studies relatively current, if you don't mind..... say within the past 6-7 years.
Thanks.
Interesting that women have kids before finishing their education, fail to seize opportunity, yet men "choose" higher paying jobs, which, using your logic, women should get?
Well, yes, men tend to choose to be educated for jobs that tend to pay more than women's choices. Men and women make different choices.
There are currently more women attaining MD status in Canada, now, I believe, but they still make less than men. You know why? Because they don't want to work as many hours. They want more balance in their lives and I think that's terrific for them. They'll be mentally, emotionally and physically healthier in the long run, but they'll make less money.
Choices, choices, choices....
Anyway, once again, we're off topic, so I apologize to the OP.
Cheers.
| |
|
My I
| | Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 187 | |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/22/2010 11:33:03 AM |
I also suspect that you didn't have to give birth in your 1st year of Unniversity did you?
Hmmmmm.... obviously, priorites were askewed. Playing the pitty game for being stupid is redundant.
Perhaps you enjoyed the birth of a child without a career interuption?.....Yet still didn't take a pause for your kids when you became a primary parent....tsk...tsk....I am sure though that the soccer coaches and gymnastic teachers were good substitutions for your absence...after all you paid good money for those people to raise your kids right?
^^^ reasoning like yours kinda explains why you're in the situation you are in. Being a voluntary stay at home single mom really is something to wonder about. Who's needs are really being catered to?
Sure, site all the psychological reasonings for being with a kid - like you have a choice. I question claim of doing what's best for your kid...... mainly because, I'm noticing the time of night you respond to these posts. I then wonder how your child benefits from you being up that late, constantly?
I'm just sayin'.... I remember years ago being up that late and it wasn't due to childcare issues. You pretend to know what men do and think.... I'll simply keep in mind you keep odd hours for being a caring, attentive, unselfish stay at home mom. I don't know? Are you burning the candle at both ends? If so... your premise for not working is all blown to hell. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/22/2010 8:20:33 PM |
Not sure where you were going with this. It takes 46 chromosomes for conception... 23 from the male, 23 from the female. Once conception is achieved, it's still only the woman who, barring anything wrong, can bring a child into the world....
.... this is a fact that women never let any man forget.
I am going where you led me. If you recall, I was responding to your mentioning that women are the ones who decide if a child is to born, or is not. It is a biological fact that only women can give birth, not an assertion of rights. From what I have seen here, it is not women who feel the need to constantly remind men of this, it is a reaction to the statement of how unfair are the options that a woman has. The truth is, men have the same option, they simply have to exercise it at a different time. The truth is life isn't fair, and you know it when you disrobe, yet you make the choice to do so, and trust someone else, at the risk of your own peril. YOU decide how perilous the prospective consequences are, period. Refusing to accept this doesn't make you right. I have stated quite clearly & to excess, frankly, that the responsibility to avoid having a child should be born by the individual most vehemently opposed to the notion. My assertions stands. If you don't want to give up control over your finances or otherwise to someone else, don't give them the opportunity to take control. Simple, and effective.
Not sure why you have a problem with my statement. I really don't believe many women get pregnant to trap guys.
Nor do I. What you said, though, was that you believe that women choose to bear a child simply because they are "turned on" by a man whose genetics are decent enough. That is the reason I responded s I did. A mature individual with a lick of sense doesn't make a life altering decision so casually.
Again, not sure why you have a problem with my statement about women getting their life together and trying to ensure they have all their ducks in a row BEFORE they get married and have kids. Why is that so offensive? Why would it matter one why or another whether a guy says the above or not? Women are quite capable of making their own decisions, aren't they?
And, yes, when women stay home after they have a kid, it does mean that she won't be gaining seniority, experience and money. This is one of the reasons that women make less in a lifetime than men do. However, I'd like to see some stats on how many women would really prefer to return to work to stay at home with the kid while the husband brings home the resources. I really don't think it would be the majority. I think the vast majority would prefer to stay home with the kid(s), but I've never seen any stats on
Because it is not women alone who make this decision. Couples decide which partner, if either one, bears the opportunity cost of forgoing income, or putting on hold a career to raise children, yet you seem to suggest that women alone should bear the responsibility, and the financial cost, for this decision. Even if women would choose on their own to remain at home, why do you think this would make them less productive? It doesn't mean they are lazy or prone to sponging off of their partner (note particularly "partner"). Perhaps they simply have different priorities, ie, greater ability to "put their ducks in order". Perhaps they recognize the importance of parenting. Did you ever suggest that your ex get a part time job, enabling you to take more responsibility for child care, and her to remain in the work force, at least to some extent?
Well, still don't know where I said men don't have anything to do with relationships with women....
... though many would be smart to avoid them, if possible....
You said that men have nothing to do with womens choices. Where children are concerned, in the context of a relationship, one would certainly hope that they do.
Well, I'd like to see all those studies you've been reading saying boys are catered to in the current public education system, including university/college. If you could, make those studies relatively current, if you don't mind..... say within the past 6-7 years.
Thanks.
I am quite sure you are capable of Googling, and I am quite sure you could cite sources on both sides of the argument. The very fact that there is an argument at all lends credence to the fact that a basis for the argument exists. In any case, your assertion that men earn more, yet are less capable, as per your statement that they make up the majority of those who fail to graduate, says more about society at large than it does about women.
Well, yes, men tend to choose to be educated for jobs that tend to pay more than women's choices. Men and women make different choices.
There are currently more women attaining MD status in Canada, now, I believe, but they still make less than men. You know why? Because they don't want to work as many hours. They want more balance in their lives and I think that's terrific for them. They'll be mentally, emotionally and physically healthier in the long run, but they'll make less money.
Choices, choices, choices....
Anyway, once again, we're off topic, so I apologize to the OP.
Cheers.
They choose to be educated, yet they fail to graduate form high school?!?! Different choices, or different options? Arguable, and again, often choices made by a couple rather than an individual, in the scenario discussed at the time. Don't want to, or have made a decision with a partner to be the one to make the sacrifice? For the single cp there are, quite simply, less choices, however convenient it may be to overlook that fact. Either way, MD's don't get paid by the hour. Perhaps it it simply a fact that women have less earning power despite their credentials and as matter of societal opinions. I'm not saying this is necessarily fact, but to ignore the possibility & deem it choice is simply a way to avoid seeking answers to valid questions, while placing blame, not to mention power & control in the hands of women. Oh, how I wish it were so! In the end, though, nothing more than a copout. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 7:24:40 AM |
It is a biological fact that only women can give birth...
Yes.
You are correct in all things.
The truth is, men have the same option, they simply have to exercise it at a different time.
No.
But I'm sure you're correct in all things.
What you said, though, was that you believe that women choose to bear a child simply because they are "turned on" by a man whose genetics are decent enough.
This is how you interpreted what I said. You take this out of context of the intentional "oops" pregnancies.
But, I'm sure you are correct.
(1)Because it is not women alone who make this decision.... (2)Did you ever suggest that your ex get a part time job, enabling you to take more responsibility for child care, and her to remain in the work force, at least to some extent?
(1)I never said they did.
(2)She did work part-time when the kids were a bit bigger. It`s where she met the love of her life.
You are correct in all the other stuff though, I`m sure.
You said that men have nothing to do with womens choices.
And here I thought women were able to make decisions for themselves.
I stand corrected once again.
In any case, your assertion that men earn more, yet are less capable...
I never said or implied this. You are interpreting again.
But, I'm sure your studies are more valid. Check with your buddy CS.
They choose to be educated, yet they fail to graduate form high school?!?!
Education takes many forms. I have buddies who never graduated high school but chose to be educated as carpenters, electricians and other trades. Several of them are millionaires and all of them have done very well.
Perhaps it it simply a fact that women have less earning power despite their credentials and as matter of societal opinions.
Yes, this is the answer. Choices have nothing to do with it. It's important to see these things as oppression and victimhood. I get it.
I concede to you and CS.
I've seen the light, Hallelujah! 
Cheers.
| |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 11:25:18 AM | Message 183 (CS): "Behind each baby there is a man and a woman who had sex."
Not true in all situations -- some women go to a sperm bank and have a baby through AI (artificial insemination). The baby and the mother never meet the biological father (sperm donor).
BUT, if the mother meets a man and the three live together as a family, then the man should have the same rights and obligations as though he were the biological father, for the best interests of the child. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 1:59:48 PM | BUT, if the mother meets a man and the three live together as a family, then the man should have the same rights and obligations as though he were the biological father, for the best interests of the child. Oh, in Canada, he has the obligations. He just has zero rights. I have a huge problem with that.
And in the case of going to a sperm bank? That's not even being a single mom because the dad deserted you, that's becoming a single parent ON PURPOSE. She went into it knowing there would be no father, and I don't see why later on down the road, she should get to "designate" one to support her and the kid, when, again, she went into single parenthood on purpose.
Bottom line is I'm glad I'm not a man living in Canada. | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 2:22:26 PM |
Bottom line is I'm glad I'm not a man living in Canada.
Oh get a grip on yourselves. These extreme situations that are causing so much contention in these forums are oddities not the norm. I know many, many single moms, and not one is collecting from more than one man. In fact, most single mom's I know are getting no child support from anyone at all let alone from bio dad and any stepdads. These include women who have sued and been awarded child support from the courts but have still never received the money for a variety of reasons.
Nutt | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 2:41:11 PM |
BUT, if the mother meets a man and the three live together as a family, then the man should have the same rights and obligations as though he were the biological father, for the best interests of the child.
As I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread, single mothers should not have it both ways. While they were single mothers, they were saying loud and clear the following:
- I am NOT looking for a father for my kid(s)
- I am NOT looking for a father for my kid(s) because they already HAVE a father
- I am NOT looking for a man to pay for me OR my kids
- I AM independent, I make my own money
... so, at the end of the relationship, WHY should the guy be obligated in any way, shape or form? Mother was clearly, by her firm assertion, ALREADY looking after the "best interests of the child".
I don't think it's right to have it both ways.
| |
|
| |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 8:19:07 PM | well I can't imagine that being hard to understand, tealwood, but since you're having trouble: Oddities are things that do not occur often or on a regular basis, in other words they are odd, not the norm.
Of course it's unfair for a stepparent to have responsibilities but not rights. However, it's not a regular occurrence for a biological parent and a stepparent to both pay child support.
You people have become so consumed by debating irregular "issues," that you've forgot there's a whole real life actually waiting outside your computer for you. Yes, perhaps you'll end up being screwed over by a b i t c h. Lots of women get screwed over by men, too, in case you didn't already know. Welcome to life where no one's perfect and some people are downright bad.
There are no guarantees of happiness or wellness. Maybe you'll have a glass of wine and take an aspirin and be the one of the slight percentage who end up in a coma. Maybe you'll get hit by a car crossing the street at a crosswalk. Maybe lightning will strike you. Maybe you'll lose your job and suffer fear and financial stress. Maybe you'll have the fight of your life against some disease or accident.
I work in a long-term care facility where the average age is 51. Some of the residents are just elderly, some have acquired brain injuries due to alcohol or drug abuse, but MANY are my age (give or take a decade) and have been left paraplegics or quadriplegics by various accidents. There's one man in his 40s who played major league ball for Australia as well as a variety of other sports recreationally. He fell on the ice and is now operating a wheelchair using his mouth and a remote. He doesn't regret playing any of those sports even though they have directly contributed to his current life state and he's not sitting at his computer complaining about his fate.
My point is if you let fear of the negative aspects of life things deter you from being a positive person and enjoying LIFE, sure you might avoid that unpleasant situation, but there's not going to be any joy for you either. And painting every person of a gender, culture, religion, country, etc with the same brush as ONE person you've had the misfortune to encounter (or hear about) is just as unreasonable as the law you're debating.
If you want to change unfairness, get out there and lobby for equity--nothing changes by sitting at your computer bashing the female gender as all evil and out to get you. Encourage other people to join you. You have a petition to sign asking for only one parent to be sued for support at any given time or for step parents to have rights to see and care for their non-biological children, send it to me. I'd be happy to sign or even to write the letter for you as I'm quite good with words. I'm sure there are MANY other people both men and women who are willing to sign a petition or to give you a letter to send to the government as well.
Nutt | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 8:43:24 PM | I've seen the light, Hallelujah!
All I have to say, capitano, is that I understand why your wife left you. 
I admit, I tend to agree with the poster who said they are happy not to live in Canada as a man, however, given the fact that the first three blurbs on the site which was referred by another poster as evidence to the fact that men are treated unfairly by Canada's system lists cases where women were required to repay undeserved cs. I believe that Nutt is correct. In America, the family court system takes each case on its merits, rightly so, even if not without error. I suspect that Canada does the same. Still, I have a problem with not providing rights hand in hand with obligations, where a parent-child relationship has been established. That defines the difference between benefiting the children & being slanted toward one gender. Are women who marry, then divorce, men with children held responsible for cs in Canada as well? Who the hell runs that country, anyway? No disrespect intended, but there seems to be no logic at all. | |
|
| |
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/23/2010 11:26:56 PM | Sure, site all the psychological reasonings for being with a kid - like you have a choice. I question claim of doing what's best for your kid...... mainly because, I'm noticing the time of night you respond to these posts. I then wonder how your child benefits from you being up that late, constantly?
I'm just sayin'.... I remember years ago being up that late and it wasn't due to childcare issues. You pretend to know what men do and think.... I'll simply keep in mind you keep odd hours for being a caring, attentive, unselfish stay at home mom. I don't know? Are you burning the candle at both ends? If so... your premise for not working is all blown to hell. ~My I~
^^^^ Not to bright are ya sherlock?....I too have noticed that you seem to be free to post during the day....and you manage to post on 3 or 4 different threads EVERYDAY....kinda blows your claims of being a hardworking victimized father out of the water don't it?
I don't know where you work...but at my work...I don't access POF or Facebook while I am being paid by my employer who expects me to ACTUALLY work!
Am I burning the candle at both ends?....yeah probably...but I am many, many years younger than you....and like I have stated before....I made my choices based on my priorities...I consider myself a SAHM because I am available for them WHEN they need me to be...for eg. supervising a class trip in the afternoon...instead of pretending to work and posting on POF...just sayin.... | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 5:02:09 AM |
Bottom line is I'm glad I'm not a man living in Canada.
Suggests a woman living outside of the country and a different woman replies...
Oh get a grip on yourselves. These extreme situations that are causing so much contention in these forums are oddities not the norm.
well I can't imagine that being hard to understand, tealwood, but since you're having trouble: Oddities are things that do not occur often or on a regular basis, in other words they are odd, not the norm.
Of course it's unfair for a stepparent to have responsibilities but not rights. However, it's not a regular occurrence for a biological parent and a stepparent to both pay child support.
I was just interested in understanding your interpretation as oddity? Now when you look at those who have ventured into court one must realize the others who realize the futility of going where there is already established case law established and understand they see little to no reason to pay the $25,000 ++ legal fee's to your lawyer and the fee's of your ex's lawyer after the court case determines what has been determined many times in the past.
So why not look at Saskatchewan:
Cook v. Kilduff, 2000 SKQB 347
Father pays spousal and child support..3 children one loco parentis
Engstrom v. Schmitz, 1995 CanLII 5735 (SK Q.B.)
loco parentis mother agree's in written agreement after very attractive division of family assets never to seek support for herself or the children as she would be relocating to Montana. She sells a Ranch and moves to Montana and fathers stays in touch with children. Seems she did not plan well and was unable to work while her papers were being processed and she went back looking for loco parentis...and despite the agreement...that was entered into and accepted as part of a divorce judgement...the guy is now paying
P. (F.D.) v. P. (A.J.), 1997 CanLII 11254 (SK Q.B.)
guy is paying and all he does is shoot blanks
Hysuick v. Rutledge, 2007 SKQB 244
pre trial and no mention of going to court again as he/she unable to prove loco parentis but the guy did lose and is paying spousal..so perhaps he realized the futility of further court action?
Nutt in Sask alone I can see 105 court cases? Now for Ontario I loved this one..
Goldring v. Lococo, 2002 where a gift/loan to adults was deemed loco parentis and also cited in the case
How does a person place himself in loco parentis to another? This is answered by our Court of Appeal. A father will place himself in loco parentis to his son-in-law if he acts in relationship to the son-in-law as if he were the parent, or possessed a fatherly interest in the son-in-law, and he helped in financing the son-in-law out of love or caring. If that is shown, then the advancement by the father will be presumed to be a gift to the son-in-law. Young v. Young (1958), 15 D.L.R. (2d) 138 at 139 (B.C.C.A.), (father and step-son).
So how many court cases where a step parent is paying child support...and often the relationship is fractured between the step parent and the child as part of the relationship breakdown...or it seemingly was never that close.....
How many Nutt would you like to see to suggest it is not an " oddity "....or is it just both paying child support which you suggest an oddity...which then begs the question why is the step parent paying and not the biological parent??? Or are you suggesting it okay that the mother chooses who is most likely to be required to pay the highest payment and then go after that person?
It happens more often than one would realize....not mentioning the fact that most should realize the futility of fighting a legally established principle.
Nutt....why would somone then fight since it is seemingly established as an accepted component of the family court system in Canada and knowing court costs are often assesed againts the losing particpant making him pay child support and both legal fee's?
But then I often have troubles understanding many of the issues and how the legal liabilities have been created?
Now i also would not suggest that not all woman in Canada accept the premsie that step parents should be paying child support either...but there are plenty who are there looking for what is best for the children and perhaps finacial retribution againts the ex?
As suggested by a mother seeking employment.....
BUT, if the mother meets a man and the three live together as a family, then the man should have the same rights and obligations as though he were the biological father, for the best interests of the child.
No mention of the child support that should be paid by the biological father....or the obligation of the mother to be working herself...... | |
|
| Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/24/2010 7:57:37 AM | Keep crying, Tealwood, it works so well for you. Especially on a chat site that has no connection to any entity that would actually change the issues that you're crying about. Do you bring all this on potential dates with you? Now, that would be a heck of a good time.
You've entirely missed the point of all my posts.
Also, 105 cases? That is STILL peanuts. It's a small fraction of the cases where parents have split and only one has the children. There are THOUSANDS of split families or Moms that had the children by themselves in the first place. The rarity is parents staying married or in that stable relationship for life, not the people who separate.
You say it's futile to FIGHT the system in place. Well I guess that black folks in the States should have lay down to die instead of fighting for freedom and rights. I guess women shouldn't have bothered to seek the vote and to be recognized as PEOPLE rather than chattel. Oh wait, those fights did eventually pay off.
FIGHTING the system is how you change the system. Yes it is hard and usually doesn't yield immediate results. Newsflash, nothing WORTH anything is ever simple or easy. That's why you're here complaining and bashing the female gender rather than out in the real world starting petitions and writing letters and encouraging people like me and the others who've agreed the laws aren't fair to help you! You're taking the easy route rather than the productive one.
Nutt | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
