Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 142
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of viewPage 5 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

I think that for non custodial men that choice is called working below their capability and their income for cs is imputed. Why are custodial parent never accorded the same consideration and their income potential is equally required for maintaining themselves and their children.....and if not working full time...aka Lizzie...then impute their income??


You may think that, but I had income imputed to me, and I never worked at all since earning a degree (and, no, my ex didn't contribute penny one to my education, so don't even bother...). We tend to forget that each case is considered individually. In general, though, I believe that the costs, to society & in the long run, associated with being away from one's children, particularly when they are very young, are greater than the costs to the parent (who is, after all, the party who should be responsible for the costs) who is usually the ncp, NOT just non custodial men. Why should a cp who has not worked as a result of an agreement between two parties be forced to do so simply because the two choose to discontinue their relationship? btw, I personally feel that, of course, there has to be sacrifice on both sides, but, for the sake of argument, and more related to the "contract" between the two.... Your assumption is based on both parties sharing equally in every responsibility to their children, although the reality is that this is not often the case. Further, the reality, for the majority, is that the ncp at the very least, agrees, and often chooses not to be as involved, despite arguments to the contrary.



No one said it was easy, I was merely responding to your post.


You also have problems giving support and finacial resources to your children if you are not working. But then that is where you expect or demand the child support? So if the father wants to move on and assist in supporting a new family...he can be hobbled by your need to be there for the children....even if you have the benefit of a new husband....


I expect & "demand" cs because it is the right of my children, because I believe in personal responsibility! I found a job within a few months of splitting with my ex due to the same belief, just as I agree to my ex paying a reduced amount in order for him to avoid living in poverty, as I remain a decent human being, & focused on reality. But this thread isn't about me, or you. For the record, though, he is "hobbled" by his own choices and refusal to work on fixing a problem, as the vast majority are, not by my childrens need to have a parent. You are barking up the wrong tree. I have no desire to share personal details on this site, or any other, but you are sorely mistaken if you attempt to judge my personal situation. I have gone far beyond what the majority would do to be fair.


But yes having children can be daunting and it can be a challenge balancing choices.

And I made a choice to do those things...and with that choice is an easily understood reality that I am not good material for advancement beyond where i am at this time....but i could have demanded my ex step up and co parent allowing me or enabling me to be more advancement material....but i was not interested...and truth be told...without really knowing you...I doubt it was a lack of a penis....it was a lack or required commitment to the job that would have held you back that would have enabled you to work and be there for your company as well as balance or occasionally miss things with/for your children.

Career choice and personal choice ....I made mine and have no problem and do not blame others for the results.


We are similar in that vein, to an extent, however, I lacked a penis long before I gave birth, and I still would earn less if I had no children at all, I am certain of it. As I have stated, it is simply a fact of life, and I accept it as fact as readily as I accept the responsibility for my offspring. To demand an uninterested or unfit party to co parent would be to do a disservice to my children, and extremely selfish, don't you think?. I am as well balanced as any other (man or woman), and I don't need validation to further that knowledge.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 143
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/18/2010 7:53:37 PM
ohwhynot

i suspect we may not agree on a few things...but I will say I have respect for where you are and where you are comming from...

Have a great week!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/18/2010 8:03:07 PM
ty, tealwood, and I will say the same to you. I will even admit and apologize for the digression, as much of our discussion has been. Even so, it is important, at least to me, and reinforces what I see in the real world, even though not often evidenced in these forums.

Hey, wanna get married?!
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 145
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/19/2010 2:28:04 AM
Love a world that pays the same without having a requirement of working the same hours! Or the same income is paid for doing the same job?


QFT. The Wage Gap is a myth.

Women make different choices, and those choices affect how they work. Women often place more importance on their relationships - caring for children, parents, spouses, etc. - than on their careers.

Women are more likely to enter and leave the workforce to raise children, take care of elderly parents or move with their families. Working mothers are nearly twice as likely to take time off to care for their children as are working fathers in dual-earner couples.

Women are also more likely to work part-time. In 2000, one-quarter of all women employees worked part-time, compared to less than 10 percent of men. Nearly 85 percent of those who worked part-time did so for non-economic reasons

Beyond work behavior, women gravitate to sectors of the economy that compensate workers at lower levels. While women hold 53 percent of all professional jobs in the United States, they hold only 28 percent of jobs in professions averaging $40,000 or more in annual compensation.



http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 147
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/19/2010 6:24:59 AM
^^ Choices. It's about choices. And some gender based differences in how women approach negotiating wages.

There are several things that bother me about the non-bio parent being expected to pay cs at the end of the relationship. If it is a continuation of the type of relationship they had while in the relationship, fair enough.

However, people should have the right to address this in a co-hab or pre-nup agreement on the way in. I can see why bio parents aren't allowed to do this - it is, after all, contracting for a future event in their case. But this is a much different situation for blended families who will have many different ways of sorting out how they are going to organize their lives. They ought to be allowed to ensure their breakup reflects how they organized their relationship.

Additionally, the non-bio parent ought to have more legal traction on the right to access. I find it very uncomfortable that the law is only addressing the financial aspects.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 148
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/19/2010 6:41:19 AM
Chasing money is easy and makes politicians look good.

Finding out how to detect cp's who lie is something that easily gets swept under rugs.

Look at how parental alienation is viewed and you can see what I mean.

To spin anything to make men look bad is all too easy these days.
And to think we were having a side tracked discussion about discrimination.
Hmmmmmmmmmm...........
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 149
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/19/2010 3:22:24 PM

QFT. The Wage Gap is a myth. Women make different choices, and those choices affect how they work. Women often place more importance on their relationships - caring for children, parents, spouses, etc. - than on their careers. Women are more likely to enter and leave the workforce to raise children, take care of elderly parents or move with their families. Working mothers are nearly twice as likely to take time off to care for their children as are working fathers in dual-earner couples. Women are also more likely to work part-time. In 2000, one-quarter of all women employees worked part-time, compared to less than 10 percent of men. Nearly 85 percent of those who worked part-time did so for non-economic reasons. Beyond work behavior, women gravitate to sectors of the economy that compensate workers at lower levels.

And why do you think that is, Einstein?



While women hold 53 percent of all professional jobs in the United States, they hold only 28 percent of jobs in professions averaging $40,000 or more in annual compensation.

Wait, didn't you just said that the wage gap is a myth?


One of the endearing qualities of CS is his humility....his general all rounded compassion and understanding he has for understanding the situation in terms each gender themselves understands...LOL

Einstein you mock?...why is it that i would always have great reservations if i had to have someone with CS sit and tell them what is the best thing to do in handling family dynamics in terms of equal balanced gender issues?

Now being a self proclaimed social scientist...or was that professional???

When you trip over your pulpit as you espouse the feminist dogma of gender gaps....do you ever address the decision of working full time versus part time? Or that full time work is or has been defined as a 36hr work week in a professional office to perhaps the tradesman working a 44 to 60 hour work week?

Now that is a little direct and confrontational...but your Einstein comment is equal in derision.

Or what about the studies of Gender differences in educational choices which has or can have the result of differences in wage gap brought about not by gender but by the occupation?

Being a social academic with professional accreditation...who has often suggested he is qualified to assist those in need of understanding might care to enlighten on
perhaps Polachek (1981) who provided illustrations of occupational variations in the cost of labour and the gender differences in educational-occupational choice and ultimately wages?

Or what about studies that show occupational orientation in terms of educational choices also differ between men and woman where pay is not the determining factor in terms of job satisfaction or career choice for woman. But i think pay is for men often a major determining factor in their choice of a career and then a factor in their educational direction.


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?

But then CS is not doubt aware of many of these issues if he really was an unbiased social academic like he is so often to suggest...as opposed to a die hard feminist who espouses empty and perhaps misleading information?



Gender differences in career choices: Why girls don’t like science
November 1, 2007



Women in post-secondary education
Educational attainment among Canadian women has risen rapidly over the past few decades. In 1971, only 3% of Canadian women held a university degree.[1] By contrast, 15% of women had a university degree in 2001 and women currently outnumber men at most levels of post-secondary education (see Figure 1). However, women remain sharply under-represented in some fields of study, particularly mathematics, physical sciences, engineering and applied sciences. This is true at all levels of post-secondary education, including college, undergraduate and graduate levels of study (see Figure 2). In contrast, women are over-represented in other fields of study, including education and health sciences (see Figure 3).

Women in the labour force
The dearth of women in scientific fields of study is reflected by a similar under-representation of women in science and engineering occupations. Over the past three decades, women in Canada have joined the labour force in ever-increasing numbers: as of 2006, women accounted for 47% of all workers in Canada. Over the same period, women have accounted for a steadily increasing proportion of workers in health care and social assistance and educational services, but the relative proportion of women in professional, scientific and technical services has declined (compared to the overall proportion of women in the labour force; see Figure 4).


The under-representation of women in science and engineering contributes to a gender-based wage gap. In recent years, real wages have declined in female-dominated disciplines such as health and education while real wages have increased in male-dominated disciplines such as engineering, mathematics, computer science and physical sciences. For example, the occupations most commonly held by young women with university degrees are elementary and kindergarten teachers.[2] Between 1995 and 2000, average earnings for women in these occupations increased by less than 1%. In contrast, earnings for young men in computer and information systems (the most commonly held occupations among young university-educated men) increased by 15% (see Table 1).

Although young women are now significantly more likely than young men to pursue post-secondary studies, young women have made little progress in closing the wage gap. In 1991, 21% of young women and 16% of young men (aged 25 to 29) held university degrees, and young women earned 20% less than young men. By 2001, 34% of young women held university degrees, compared to 21% of young men. Nonetheless, young women still earned 18% less than young men.

Given that young women in Canada clearly see the value of a post-secondary education, what keeps them from pursuing studies in science and engineering?


http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Reports/LessonsInLearning/LinL20071101_Gender_differences_in_science.htm?Language=EN

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/4/4/3/pages104439/p104439-5.php


Authors: Burge, Stephanie.


Differences in Adolescents’ Planned Majors and Earned Degrees: Perceived Competence or Early Family Commitment? Abstract To help explain the persistence of gender inequality in the workplace, it is important to understand why young women and men continue to pursue different academic majors in college. In this paper, I test competing theories of women’s stalled progress in elite college majors such as math, science, and engineering. The first, Jacobs’ social control hypothesis (1995), argues that young women’s enduring commitment to family limits their success in elite academic majors. The second, argued by Correll (2001; 2004), is that cultural beliefs about gender negatively affect women’s perceptions of their abilities in math and science related tasks. Using the National Education Longitudinal Study, I examine young women’s and men’s intended college majors in 1992 as high school seniors and their earned degrees eight years later. Majors are categorized as: traditionally female majors, non-physical sciences, social sciences/business, and physical science/engineering. My findings suggest that math-efficacy is a significant predictor of adolescents’ intentions to major in math/science and later achievements, but it does explain young women’s and men’s different choices in college major. Instead, adolescents’ early orientations toward family commitment are essential to understanding contemporary gender segregation of academic majors, lending greater support for Jacobs’ social control hypothesis.

Women’s educational advances signify one of the most striking examples of American social change in the past century. Historically, young men’s educational achievements surpassed those of women, with men being far more likely to enroll in and complete college, as well as achieve post-graduate and professional educational credentials. However, in the wake of the Women’s Movement, young women’s educational achievements have steadily risen. Among contemporary cohorts, women are considerably more likely to achieve bachelor’s and master’s degrees (NCES 2000). Moreover, since the 21 st century, young women’s achievements of professional degrees such as law and medical degrees have reached near parity with men (NCES 2000; 2005). While women have made remarkable strides within higher education, there remains persistent gender inequality at work, as measured by both occupational sex segregation and the gender pay gap. Scholars who study women’s striking gains in the educational arena remain puzzled as to why women’s post-secondary achievements have not ‘paid off’ in terms of eradicating gender inequality in the workplace (Bradley 2000). How can we reconcile resilient gender inequality in the workplace in spite of women’s rising educational ambitions and accomplishments? Part of the answer lies in the divergent educational pathways that young women and men take as they move through university, specifically the sex segregation of academic majors. Generally speaking, research on occupational sex segregation and gender inequality in earnings measure educational achievements only in terms of educational transitions such as earned college degree and post-graduate degree, rather than in terms of the academic major of the educational degree (Bradley 2000). Yet, women’s and men’s pattern of course-taking .

Women’s educational advances signify one of the most striking examples of American social change in the past century. Historically, young men’s educational achievements surpassed those of women, with men being far more likely to enroll in and complete college, as well as achieve post-graduate and professional educational credentials. However, in the wake of the Women’s Movement, young women’s educational achievements have steadily risen. Among contemporary cohorts, women are considerably more likely to achieve bachelor’s and master’s degrees (NCES 2000). Moreover, since the 21stcentury, young women’s achievements of professional degrees such as law and medical degrees have reached near parity with men (NCES 2000; 2005). While women have made remarkable strides within higher education, there remains persistent gender inequality at work, as measured by both occupational sex segregation and the gender pay gap. Scholars who study women’s striking gains in the educational arena remain puzzled as to why women’s post-secondary achievements have not ‘paid off’ in terms of eradicating gender inequality in the workplace (Bradley 2000). How can we reconcile resilient gender inequality in the workplace in spite of women’s rising educational ambitions and accomplishments? Part of the answer lies in the divergent educational pathways that young women and men take as they move through university, specifically the sex segregation of academic majors. Generally speaking, research on occupational sex segregation and gender inequality in earnings measure educational achievements only in terms of educational transitions such as earned college degree and post-graduate degree, rather than in terms of the academic major of the educational degree (Bradley 2000). Yet, women’s and men’s pattern of course-taking and majors of earned degrees remain highly differentiated, even among contemporary cohorts (NCES 2000; 2005; Bradley 2000; Charles and Bradley 2002). More specifically, whereas women have carved substantial inroads into some majors such as business and the social sciences, other male-dominated majors such as physical science and engineering remain examples of stubborn inequality (Xie and Shauman 2003; Jacobs 1995; 1996; Charles and Bradley 2002). Furthermore, contemporary women remain largely concentrated within traditionally female academic majors that lead to career paths characterized by low prestige and pay, such as education and the humanities (NCES 2000; 2005). Given that many elite and lucrative occupations require advanced educational credentials in math/science as prerequisites for entry, women’s concentration within traditionally female fields of study signals that women’s rising educational achievement may not necessarily lead to greater gender equity in the workplace. Past research on gender differences in choice of major often focused exclusively on factors that limited women’s access to math/science majors. This line of research identified several factors that contribute to young women’s lower achievement in science including women’s lower early interest in math/science, lower academic preparation, and lower math efficacy. While these dynamics may help explain women’s stalled progress into elite majors such as physical sciences and engineering, little research addresses the underpinning for young women’s continued commitment to traditionally female majors, despite their increased educational opportunity in other fields of study and the lower economic rewards associated with training in education, health occupations, and humanities. In the late 1970s, Polachek (1978) argued that young women pursued typically female-dominated majors because these fields lead to careers that more easily balanced the competing goals of work and family. Jacobs (1995; 1996) posed a similar argument, namely that family considerations hamper young women’s schooling and work decisions in spite of increasing educational opportunity for women. Yet, social change regarding women’s role within higher education, the workplace, and the family seems to signal more favorable prospects for young women to balance competing the priorities of work and family, such that commitment to family may no longer factor as heavily in women’s decisions to pursue traditionally female majors. In order to better understand the role of post-secondary education in either undermining or reinforcing gender inequality in the workplace, further research is needed to identify the sources of young women’s and men’s divergent educational trajectories within the university setting. Specifically, this research should provide greater insight into those factors that continue to attract women to traditionally female majors, despite the lower prestige and economic rewards that characterize these fields.


All interesting and perhaps explanations of what we have to do to perhaps better over come the suggested wage disparity....or we can just say woman earn less than men and equality is not found until they are paid the same without ever looking at the specifics..
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 150
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/19/2010 5:13:25 PM

You do realize you just said that she STAYED at home while you worked two jobs. Yet you also state that you did just as much child-rearing than she did??? She did not change diapers, you did? She did not spent most her days with the kids while they where in infancy then, I guess?


Yup, I read housework where child-rearing was what was said. My statement holds for housework, but the ex did more of the child-rearing.....

... but I still find your list out-dated and ridiculous for the most part.


Anyway - this is useless. Your lack of opening to even TRY to understand this is so flagrant it's not even worth discussing.


No, I understand the situation all too well. I think it is YOU who has no real understanding of the issues, because you have never had kids, never been married, and, while it's speculation, I think you've spent your whole life being indoctrinated in the female dominated education system. YOU are incapable of seeing things as the ARE. YOU have never lived or worked in the real world. YOU have very limited, real life, experience.


Your reaction to this list of what woman must go through every day - it makes me angry, because it degrades the image of men. It is because of men like you than our ENTIRE gender is seen as so retarded and backward.


YOU are a bigger problem than someone like me because you work at keeping women victims rather than helping them be responsible and equal participants.

I ask you: Have you EVER had a real job in the real world or have you spent all of you adult life in academia?


I think they deserve equal treatment.


I agree, but people with your belief system are doing women AND men a great disservice by working so hard to maintain women's victim status.



I have sons. I DO believe females should have EQUAL opportunities but, I'm concerned that my sons will never have equal opportunities because they are male, which is clearly the trend, currently....


How so? Other than in parenting and custody areas, how would men NOT have equal opportunity exactly? Or even higher, better opportunities to be precise?


I realize that you believe women are downtrodden and oppressed, have no opportunities, face the mythical Glass Ceiling created by the mythical Patriachy. I also have read enough of your posting to understand that you believe you look at the world in a balance way.

I worry for my sons and their futures because of the ever-growing body of evidence that points at males as being increasingly marginalized by educational and social realities.

Funnily enough, just this morning I read an article about boys in the educational system and what it could very well mean for males my sons' ages.

http://www.leaderpost.com/Boys+fail+make+grade+class+relationships+author+says/2921958/story.html



Boys fail to make the grade - in class or relationships, author say
By Shannon Proudfoot, Canwest News ServiceApril 18, 2010

Boys lag behind girls and emerge from school ill-prepared for a world that demands stronger language skills than ever before, according to a new book, and their careers and even their relationship prospects are suffering as a result.

In Why Boys Fail: Saving our Sons from an Educational System That's Leaving Them Behind, former USA Today writer Richard Whitmire argues that the gaps between boys and girls are only widening, but there's resistance to acknowledging and fixing the problem.

"It's politically incorrect to watch out for the boys," he says. "There's still this mindset that girls have to be protected and nurtured, that men succeed so well in the marketplace, let's not worry about them. I don't think people realize the implications of not doing something."

The central contention of Whitmire's book is that: "The world has gotten more verbal; boys haven't."

Girls have an easier time with reading and language than boys in the earliest years of school, he says, but until the past two decades, boys would catch up by the time they reached Grade 4 or 5. Now, however, school curricula are more challenging in earlier grades - particularly when it comes to language - and many boys never get a firm footing in reading, he says.

And with science and math increasingly taught in word-problem format, boys struggling with language fall behind in other subjects, Whitmire says.

"Some boys absorb it just fine but a fair number don't, and they struggle, they get turned off to reading," he says. "They look around and see that mostly girls are succeeding and they conclude that school is for girls and look elsewhere for satisfaction."

Barry MacDonald, a Vancouver-based education counsellor and author of Boy Smarts: Mentoring Boys for Success at School, says boys tend to like visual, active learning and feel alienated by "traditional" classrooms where every answer has to be written down. He doesn't favour single-sex classrooms, but he says there aren't enough role models to show boys that learning and reading doesn't have to be girls' work.

"The gender straitjacket has actually tightened up for us males. It's almost like we have this pumped-up-on-steroids version of masculinity now and boys are simply responding to it," he says. "That reality says you're a suck-up if you like what the school does."

Canadian girls once lagged in science and math, but in recent years they've closed the gaps, according to results of the Programme for International Student Assessment from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and they're now even further ahead of boys in reading and writing skills.

Sex differences in academic achievement are more stark in Canada than in many OECD countries, says Paul Cappon, president and CEO of the Canadian Council on Learning, and the fallout is obvious on university campuses: Just 39 per cent of university graduates in Canada are male, he says, when it was an even balance just a couple of decades ago.

"That's an enormous change in a generation," he says. "That's a societal wave, a tsunami."

And boys are eschewing university right when they need it most, Whitmire says.

Post-secondary education is "the new high school" in terms of being a basic job requirement in the eyes of many employers, he says, and strong reading and writing abilities have become a universal necessity. Even hands-on workers such as police officers and contractors are required to produce complex written reports as part of their jobs, he says, putting boys who struggle in school or drop out at a major disadvantage.

"The requirements of literacy in a knowledge society are so different, so fundamentally more advanced than they were a generation ago," Cappon concurs.

But Whitmire believes the most damaging potential result of the academic struggles of boys isn't economic at all, but personal: the "marriageable mate dilemma." Women are usually reluctant to "marry down" in terms of education, he says, and the imbalance on university campuses means there will ultimately be a dearth of degree-holding men to be potential mates for all the female graduates.

"Will they marry down? A lot of people think that they will. I don't share that, I don't think they will," he says, adding he believes it's more likely some won't marry at all. "What's the point? If they're not going to be a true companion, as in an intellectual equal, and their earnings are not going to be comparable, then the incentives for marriage wane."

But the focus of the marriageable mate issue is generally on the implications for children and families or on women's options, he says, and the boys who will grow into men who may have a hard time finding a mate are forgotten.

"It's a personal fulfilment issue," he says. "I think the personal side is really, really important and I think it's under-appreciated."

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


I realize that you will likely poo-poo this growing body of evidence and research, but I am very concerned about it. You talk about equality, but you only see one side of things.

I don't believe for a second that you started this thread in order to learn better about the problem with men paying CS for non-bio children You bias is clear and very entrenched.

Now, to relate WHY I'm concerned for my sons in relation to this thread topic:

As the trend for women to have kids simply because they want them without the inconvenience of having a relationship with a man, my sons will increasingly find that there are more women with kid(s) from previous "relationships".

My sons will be much more likely to end up caught up in an in loco parentis situation than ever before.


Tealwood: Now a sense of privilege or entitlement....Cappy??? you still sharing custodial parenting 50/50 with your ex wife.....while paying cs...while she either is not employed or not working a full time job? Am I correct in assuming you are to start earning less to fall into line with CS ideas of men and woman earning the same overall income?


Yup, same ol', same ol'.....

I COULD choose to work less or not at all, as my ex has done, but my kids would suffer, I would not be able to do many of the things I enjoy, and my ex might have to get a real job. My income would be imputed.

Yeah, it must be nice to choose to work less as many women do, using their kids as an excuse as to why they NEED to do so, but I really believe it's a bunch of bullshit smoke and mirrors.

As you and others have mentioned, the whole lower income of women is because of women's choices. Warren Farrell wrote a well researched book about it. I've read other research about it and it's women's choices that account for the huge difference.


 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 152
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/19/2010 7:04:56 PM
Happy?


No, not at all. Surprised, perhaps, but that's about it.


On one hand, you accuse me on "trying to maintain women's victim status" while on the other hand, you keep crying about how victimized the men are in the current system.


No, I have not cried at all about how victimized men are. I just recognize and point out the double standard that you and other feminists go on about.

As I've mentioned many times, my sons have asked me why the girls in the school have many more privileges granted than do the boys. Believe it or not, I bring up many of the things you hold so closely to your heart: That for a long time females had difficulties with equality and that now the pendulum has swung way over to females being the privileged sex in many areas.

I've tried to let them know that they have to accept that as it is and to just keep doing whatever they need to do for themselves in order to be themselves and to be happy, satisfied men.


I have said before, and I repeat, if you want people to take you seriously when you claim that men are living unequal treatment about parenting and child support; you HAVE to acknowledge what women ALSO live large unequal treatment in the society.


I've never denied that women have some difficulties, that some inequalities exist. I've pointed out that some of the complaints that women have is neither as dire as you would like the world to believe nor is every complaint unique to females. I've pointed out that trying to maintain women's victim status and pandering to women does everyone a disservice.


Now; the list of 43 points I posted in msg #135 is not from me.


Obviously. That list has been around for a long time. Why do you think I referred to it as "out-dated"?


It's what women studies have found over and over... I am telling you what women studies have found


......exactly why I have questioned your real world experience.


Take Tealwood's research for instance. Both show that there *IS* a clear gender gap between jobs. We can argue and debate about why these difference are there and where they come from. But that's not what you do, no!!


I respect Tealwood and his perspective. I share it, which is why I've never denied that there is a descrepency in incomes between women and men. I just don't think that the majority of the descrepency is due to discrimination, but more to do with the choices women make, right or wrong.


"Single fathers, male role model, the boy code, custody and equality: Paradox?" http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts13659689.aspx remember?


I DO remember. The difference is that you chose to slant the problem with boys not making doing well in the education system as a fault of how males see and experience the world not as a problem with how the system sees and experiences boys.


Frankly, I could care less about what you beleive my motives are.


Nor I, yours...

... finally, a point of agreement that will likely not lead to more contention.....

 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 153
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/20/2010 4:19:16 PM
Cappy before I say anything else my thanks on the kind comments.

CS...I have asked this before and I will ask this again. Since you lean or are in favour of step parents being financially responsible for the children after the breakdown of the relationship .....are you equally advocating that the finacial contributions should be looked at or taken into consideration while they are married when costs and extraordinary expenses for children are being tabulated or reviewed.

You never seem to have anything to say about this? But you do advocate finacial responsibility after the relationship...

I am still highly surprised (and, if true, quite dismayed) at the idea that a law could force step-parents towards obligations to the child (that part is okay for me)


So will you come out and advocate ...clearly and without reservation that the finacial contributions of new bf/gf should also be recognized and used for tabulating what or how the costs should be shared between households....



I started this thread both to better understand the problematic related to loco parentis, and to discuss and debate the equally important issue of the psychological needs of a child vs a step parent who is, for all purposes, a parent to him/her. Frankly, I could care less about what you beleive my motives are.


This after all would suggest you are interested in the children...the children from the relationship the children or step children from all sides of the equation and not what some of us men see as your only consideration or requirement is seeing the custodial primary parent being able to get as much coin as she can.

to me it really is only equal or equitable when you acknowledge the finacial contributions both before and after if you are going to stand behind step parents being finacially liable.

Now when you come to access and time spent....when the child is spending every other weekend with the biological parent....2 nights every other weekend and every Wed...24% of the month and with the step parent every opposite weekend and every Tuesday again 24% of the time....

I would suggest that exceeds 40% of the month and the costs for the custodial mother will not be the same as one would expect being a full time or majority custodial parent.

i think you would lose the support of custodial mothers when they see both non custodial fathers getting the time with the children and the suggestion of lowered cs as there would no longer be a claim of of majority time costs...

The other question is if the custodial situation is 50/50 and the step parent would only be sharing the time spent with the biological parent they had the relationship with unless you are going to suggest that the time is diminished both biological parents to accommodate the step parent?

So CS....you can sound so politically correct and so socially concerned about the situation of finacial resources for the children and its situation for the custodial parent...which is really just the mother since as mentioned the majority of custodial fathers working full time do not even collect or ask for child support?

Now...on to other questions or slippery statements that you avoid or gloss over....


alwood's research for instance. Both show that there *IS* a clear gender gap between jobs. We can argue and debate about why these difference are there and where they come from.


I do not see that there is a clear gender gap between jobs. What the study and others suggest there is a clear gap between career choices in terms of finacial remuneration. The study and other studies also demonstrate a difference in career choices that men and woman make and the finacial results of those choices.

That is not a glass ceiling or gender discrimination but the does make cheap arguments. That is not a clear illustration of gender inequalities.

Now when we compare numbers of overall full time employment of men and woman...again...one who was honest and of any integrity would ask and review the criteria of full time work.....W5 did a great piece on this a number of years ago...

Full time work is for many if not all studies is 36 hours....So perhaps we can suggest that many of the individuals who are working 36 hrs...or 7.2 hrs 5 days a week would be office workers which might be heavily woman....and then comparing those to men in the trades who are working a 44--60 hour work week and saying...

Gender equality is a fact of life since woman earn 60 cents to every $1.00 a man makes.....which is something the feminist are known to espouse that lacks some credibility when one breaks down some of the arguments...

Unless you also,,,CS think a individual working 44hrs should make the same as an individual working 36hrs????

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.

Now perhaps[s CS you might like to suggest that woman need the same overall remuneration as part of the equalization or gender equalization without consideration of the numbers of hours they might work....that would be CS defining affirmative action?

And then we have CS also advocating great revenue streams in terms of child support payments....and what else?


et's see? I have a B.Sc. in mathematical computation and operational research; I have been on the workforce since I was 19 years old; and in my professional field as a specialist since 1993; I also have done 3 years in engineering prior to switching to maths & op. research. In 1999 I went for a certificate in business school to learn how to startup a business, and in 2001, I created and incorporated my own consulting company and have been steadily employed as an autonomous consultant since the; today my services are sold in the excess of $80.00 per hour.


Not anything I would have expected? So my assumption of perpetual student and one living off the social programs would make me an ass it seems?

$80 per hour....would suggest you are in a very attractive tax bracket if you were successful...working 7.2 hours a day...5 days a week...is a income of $149,760 per year. Working only 36hours per week...imagine what he would earn if he was working the 40---50 hour work week that many see as a full time work week?

But that is a great accomplishment for someone working 17yrs...since age 20....most 20 year old I thought would still be in school?

But then perhaps we are seriously underestimating this humanitarian who earning in excess of $150,000 per year is in addition taking on studies and time to counsel families into how to improve their parenting skills.....


, I could care less about what you beleive my motives are.


i have never really concerned myself with what your motives are....i just have issues with the delivery and often the apparent one sided nature of your arguments....at least when you are arguing the merits of non spanking your arguments are heavily weighted with serious studies and academic research to support your rigid belief system.


But why not answer one question...

If you support step parents being required to pay cs...do you then also agree that the income of step parents should be used when re-allocating finacial resources between 2 households?
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 154
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/20/2010 4:57:51 PM


QFT. The Wage Gap is a myth. Women make different choices, and those choices affect how they work. Women often place more importance on their relationships - caring for children, parents, spouses, etc. - than on their careers. Women are more likely to enter and leave the workforce to raise children, take care of elderly parents or move with their families. Working mothers are nearly twice as likely to take time off to care for their children as are working fathers in dual-earner couples. Women are also more likely to work part-time. In 2000, one-quarter of all women employees worked part-time, compared to less than 10 percent of men. Nearly 85 percent of those who worked part-time did so for non-economic reasons. Beyond work behavior, women gravitate to sectors of the economy that compensate workers at lower levels.


And why do you think that is, Einstein?


Because women, just like men, make choices and should be responsible for them. They don't get to play the "I was bullied by societal expectations!" card anymore. Remember, this is the 21st century, not the mid-50s... Einstein.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 157
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/20/2010 6:00:16 PM

Frankly, I am not a financial specialist and, I repeat, I don't really care about the financial side of this.


Well, at least it's great that you think that women who screech, " I'M NOT LOOKING FOR A FATHER FOR MY KIDS. I DON'T WANT A MAN'S MONEY, I HAVE MY OWN MONEY!!!" have no business going after a step dad for CS when she kicks him to the curb.....

... cool...

 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 159
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/20/2010 8:10:29 PM
Not simply because I like CS, although I do, but I think some of you are so quick to jump on him, taking his posts out of context, simply to further your argument, and your contentions are baseless. He never said that step parents ought necessarily have cs (en)forced upon them, he was looking for input. I think it brings about an interesting point, as well, and I agree that it seems strange, especially if they are not given parental rights. Still, there is some basis for an argument in favor of it, and while it is a difficult concept to grasp, it is a valid discussion.

Transgressions regarding gender diferences insofar as wages avoid the discussion, but it is true that women still earn less than men, and it is not as simple as "because they choose to", nor are they victims. Do you really think that merely being female causes one to decide to take a job earning less money than they would if they were a man? That is ridiculous! Many of the arguments presented here would have us believe that the same sly, conniving creatures who trick unsuspecting (ie, stupid!) men into fatherhood are so lacking in their thought processes that they forfeit income for no other reason than to take from another. Ludicrous.

Interesting, posts such as:

As the trend for women to have kids simply because they want them without the inconvenience of having a relationship with a man, my sons will increasingly find that there are more women with kid(s) from previous "relationships".


Hmmm, the endless posts about the war against marriage, led by men, have now turned in to women not wanting to be bothered with a relationship? Really? You think it's so much easier to use a man & parent alone in an effort to collect a few dollars? You, the same man who professes that he helped with housework but left the most important job, child rearing, to a mere woman? Give me a break!

I fail to understand the consistent need to attack. Parenting is likely the most important job any of us will ever have, and the topic brings about some interesting questions. Is it not possible for a group of seemingly intelligent beings to agree at least that this is a difficult issue & discuss the difficulties without attacking each other simply for making pertinent points? Sad.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 160
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/20/2010 8:49:52 PM
Hmmm, the endless posts about the war against marriage, led by men, have now turned in to women not wanting to be bothered with a relationship? Really?


Well, sweetums, looking at the stats, a rather large percenage of kids born are to women who are not married or in a relationship. Women are choosing, more and more, to have kids without men involved.

Honestly? I hope my kids freeze their sperm, get vasectomies at young ages, and never get married. If they are silly enough to do so, and want to have kids at some time, there may be some of their viable sperm around.


You think it's so much easier to use a man & parent alone in an effort to collect a few dollars?


I don't know from personal experience, but listening to all the single mothers here they're gonna have kids no matter what, the kids are the bestest thing ever, and the moms really do like to collect as much as they can from men when they can.

So, I dunno, really, ask the moms.


You, the same man who professes that he helped with housework but left the most important job, child rearing, to a mere woman?


I did do as much housework as my ex. Where have I ever said that I left all of the child-rearing to my ex? That is not true.

Of course she did more child-rearing because she was a SAHM, but she did not do all of it. I changed my fair share of diapers too. Cloth diapers and actually washed them regularly too. When I got home from my day job, I would do my second job which was to look after the kids and cook dinner several times a week. Believe it or not I did other domestic chores too. A few other nights of the week I did my second paying job and had a few other contracts on occasion. Geez... I was even working on a Masters degree for a while too...

I have my younger, bio sons 50% of the time and have done so since they were 3, 4. They are now 11, 13. The eldest, my step son, is 19 lives mainly with his bio-father and has done so for a number of years now, though he spends more time here than he does with his mother.

My ex is not a "mere woman". She's a great mother, sister, daughter.

So, I really do, in fact have a pretty good idea about raising kids and I also know that it ain't anywhere nearly as onerous and difficult as so many women would like the world to believe.

 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 162
view profile
History
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/20/2010 9:41:44 PM

Well, sweetums, looking at the stats, a rather large percenage of kids born are to women who are not married or in a relationship. Women are choosing, more and more, to have kids without men involved.


I agree, more children are born out of wedlock than ever before. What I was alluding to, though, was that you (not you, personally) can't have it both ways. On one hand, posts state that men are refusing to marry, while on the other hand stating that women are the ones making the choice. Either the war is actually being waged by women, or women have no choice if they want to parent than to do so outside of marriage. Either way, this doesn't mean that men don't want to have children; it is not always the woman alone who makes the decision to have children. It doesn't speak to the profitability or attempt at such, of "trapping" a man into fatherhood to any extent.


I don't know from personal experience, but listening to all the single mothers here they're gonna have kids no matter what, the kids are the bestest thing ever, and the moms really do like to collect as much as they can from men when they can.


That is not my interpretation of what I have read here. In any case, it has become increasingly clear to me that those who choose to participate in these forums are not indicative of the real world. Kids are the "bestest thing ever" for many, but they most certainly make our lives more difficult, financially & otherwise. Even if we (cp's) collect "as much as we can" cs does not result in financial gain for the vast majority. Rare (extremely so!) is the cp who profits from raising children, although reading these forums one would get the impression that there is a windfall left over after feeding, clothing, housing & otherwise providing for one's offspring. Simply not so.

No need to quote, as you admit you said that you left "most of " the child rearing to your ex. But, raising children ALONE is certainly difficult, and entails sacrifice that having aid, either financial or practical, doesn't, particularly young children, and especially if one is parenting alone 24/7. Changing diapers several times a week isn't comparable to having no choice but to change diapers every single time they need changing. I am not singling you, out, truly I am not, but 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?
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 163
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/20/2010 9:50:35 PM
Hu??!? And how do you conclude the later with the former?


'Cause, Einstein, only women can choose to bring a kid into the world....



I dare to say that if a rather large percentage of kids are born to women who aren't married nor in a relationship, it certainly isn't because the mother was the only one to make choices. Surely you can agree to this?


Well, no, actually... see my comment above.

I do agree that men can be scumbags and choose not to take responsibility for kids who carry their genetic stuff, but only women can choose to bring a kid into the world and I suspect that the trend of women choosing to do so alone will continue. How they choose to get pregnant will vary according to their personal set of values and mores, I'm sure.



Behind each baby there is a man and a woman who had sex.
Aren't BOTH consenting adults responsible here?


Nope.... ever heard of a sperm bank, Einstein?

Ever make regular deposits there?....

And, I realize that you would never believe that women would have an intentional "oops" type of pregnancy, but I've met many women who choose Fate as their BC of choice. And, I've met a lot of really stupid men who choose to believe a woman about her BC and who then don't take personal responsibility for their sperm.

 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 165
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/20/2010 10:20:59 PM

Since you never did it, though, how would you know how onerous & difficult it is?


Never did what? Be a SAHM? Of course not, I don't even have a vagina, to begin with....

... 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?

Okey, dokey.

 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 166
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/20/2010 10:42:26 PM

Ohhhh I see. You really have a gift for shooting yourself in your own foot.


Yes, whatever, darling.

I've stated my opinion of men who trust women to be the only ones responsible for BC.

That doesn't change the fact that women are the only ones who can choose to bring a kid into the world. Women have about a dozen methods of BC for prevention and 3 choices post conception. The post conception decisions may be difficult, but it doesn't change the fact that only the woman can choose....

... well, I suppose that if you count Fate as a method of BC there are about 13 methods for women.

Men have 3 BC options: Condom, vasectomy and, for the stupid and trusting, Fate.


Can you make it clear for us, then - do you believe that men don't have any responsibility into "bringing that kid into the world" only because women's decision not to abort comes in as a second step?


Yes, well, to use the feminist mantra of equality in all things, I think men ought to have a post conception opt-out option just as women do. Men have no say in what a woman chooses to do with her body, as it should be. But women have a choice to be a mother without anyone having any say in her choice. Men do not have that option.

But that topic has been discussed in the fora and I don't think we need another departure from your OP.


Oh, so you are telling me that the majority of your statistics come from women who used sperm bank, Sherlock


No, Moriarty, I was simply rebutting your statement:


Behind each baby there is a man and a woman who had sex.


 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 168
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
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 169
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.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 170
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/21/2010 4:58:46 PM

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?




Dude, you're a blast.

You call MY ego into question yet you came back here because I rebutted a couple of minor points in a couple of posts to you and ohwhy?

You're THAT insecure?

Geez, you even fight like a girl, by Zeus.

Anyway, why are you so desperate to get men to bow to your feminst POV in a thread that isn't even about you OR how why it's necessary to keep the perception of woman as victim?

On topic:

I really think that the in loco parentis rulings are a cash grab especially when single mothers state so adamantly that they don't want a man to be a father for their kids nor are they looking for a man to support them OR their kids....

... until they kick the guy to the curb or the guy leaves.

As I've said many times: At the beginning it's all about the LOOOooooovve. At the end, it's all about the MOOonnney.

 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 173
view profile
History
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.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 174
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.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 175
view profile
History
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.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 177
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.

Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >