Child Support is an Artificial Social Policy

[Henrin]

Rosie Palms.

Ok, I completely missed the reference obviously. lol.

 

[Henrin]

so you are completely pro-choice?

Banning abortion won't change that reality. It might catch some women I suppose that abort, but most of them will get away with it.

 

[Visbek]

Doesn't anybody here know of some women paying child support? I do.....
The real crime is in the increased taxes that responsible people pay to support the children who have been abandoned by a parent, or even both parents, like my father.

Roughly 20% of custodial parents are men; and 1/4 of them get child support payments. 50% of women awarded custody get child support.

So, about 10% of child support payments go to children whose custodial parent is a man.

More fun with statistics!

25% of custodial mothers do not receive any of their payments
35% receive partial payments (usually about half)
40% receive all their payments

32% of custodial fathers do not receive any of their payments
28% receive partial payments (usually less than half)
40% receive all their payments

This is probably because, in what should surprise no one, women have lower incomes; and the men who get awarded custodial payments have double the income of women who are awarded custodial payments.

There's a lot of other complications, often glossed over or ignored by Red Pillers who are pissed off that they might one day be required to pay child support.

Are Moms Less Likely Than Dads To Pay Child Support? | FiveThirtyEight

 

[Visbek]

how in the hell does that pertain?

The OP's argument can be boiled down to:

"Women can get abortions, but men cannot force women to get abortions. Therefore, child support payments are extortion."

Does the link make more sense now?

 

[Henrin]

The OP's argument can be boiled down to:

"Women can get abortions, but men cannot force women to get abortions. Therefore, child support payments are extortion."

Does the link make more sense now?

No, because that's not what he said.

 

[Celebrity]

This is probably because, in what should surprise no one, women have lower incomes; and the men who get awarded custodial payments have double the income of women who are awarded custodial payments.

You mean women with lower incomes are equally or more likely to abort due to financial reasons?

Huh, I guess men don't really have that option. Seems pretty sexist.

Imagine if Miranda rights read like this:

1. You have the right to remain silent;
2. Anything you do say can and may be used against you in a court of law;
3. You have the right to the legal protection you had before you became suspect of a crime, present before and during the questioning. If you didn't have an attorney on retainer beforehand, we will prosecute and convict you and you aren't allowed to have a say in it; and
4. you have the right, if you cannot afford the services of an attorney, to have one appointed, at public expense and without cost to you, to hold your hand before and during the questioning, telling you that you might as well just confess and pay up, bub, it's what's best for everyone.

 

[Aberration]

50/50 custody with no support should be the default unless there is a rational reason why one parent is unable to fill the obligation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Celebrity]

50/50 custody with no support should be the default unless there is a rational reason why one parent is unable to fill the obligation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fine and dandy for assets, but I get the sense that judges want to see men and women fight over their children like scraps of meat.

 

[jet57]

You may have heard of the term "sexual market value," or seen this video called The Economics of Sex from The Austin Institute. The idea is that women and men both uniquely exchange something in an intimate relationship, including times before, during and after sex.




Ideally, men and women agree on an exchange that is equitable and autonomous, meaning that neither party is forced against their will, and both parties feel that they have been fairly "compensated." This can mean different things for men and women, as all men are not the same and all women are not the same. In the video, some common sexual stereotypes are mentioned about how men and women approach sex differently, on average.

Women have the ability to create or not create children, while men do not, so child support is beneficial to child rearing women. Child support is not detrimental to women who do not birth children. Child support increases the supply of resources for women who have sex, while it increases the demand for resources for men who have sex. Some people view this as economic stimulation for both parties, since there is a "need" which is created, a "need" which was not previously there. It is not stimulation, but a cost in an exchange with a net gain that benefits the custodial party. The custodial party is, on average, a woman.

Child support is part of the reason why women are able to "value" themselves at a higher rank than men, as sexual partners in a society or "sexual economy." We sometimes say that men "marry into money," but women are expected to find (economic) stability in a sexual partner. We just call women who marry wealthy men "lucky girls," or perhaps "trophy wives." A woman always has the final say in what happens with "her body." Sometimes this has repercussions that extend beyond her own personal choices. The leverage that fertility gives a sexually active women is not limited to her ability to start a family; she also has the ability to end a family. By end a family, I do not mean to say that women are the destroyers of families, although it is sometimes true that men and women behave in this way. I mean that women can start families and end contact with family members at will, by forming a new family not socially connected to the old family.

How does this relate to sex? Child support comes from pregnancy, which comes from sex, which is an intimate exchange. When women have legal options above and beyond what men have, it is discriminatory of the male sex and unethical in a legal setting. An artificial social policy which tries to compensate for a child's need is no more justified than an artificial social policy which compensated for a plantation's need of labor during the Atlantic Slave Trade between the 15th and 19th century. This is a new form of artificial, involuntary servitude which is commonly justified by our cultural attachment to infants.

While men and women are valued differently by society, their sexual encounters are sometimes made public in order to reduce their sexual value. A woman who is called a "slut" may not be a slut. A man who is called a "stud" may not be a stud. A man and women who are ordered to compete in a court of law on different footing do so in the face of an injustice which neither of them can control.

 

[_Sal]

Banning abortion won't change that reality. It might catch some women I suppose that abort, but most of them will get away with it.

luckily you are right although more would unnecessarily die

 

[Visbek]

You mean women with lower incomes are equally or more likely to abort due to financial reasons?

Huh, I guess men don't really have that option. Seems pretty sexist.

Wait, you mean women can't urinate standing up, so women's bathrooms don't have urinals? Sounds pretty sexist.

:roll:

Imagine if Miranda rights read like this:

• There is absolutely no question that any parent involved in making voluntary custody arrangements, or in a custody dispute, are entitled to -- and have plenty of time to arrange -- legal representation.

• There are few situations where the woman can afford an attorney, but the man cannot.

• Yet again, nothing in your comments even remotely acknowledges that ultimately, child support is about the welfare of THE CHILD.

 

[ARealConservative]

The OP's argument can be boiled down to:

"Women can get abortions, but men cannot force women to get abortions. Therefore, child support payments are extortion."

Does the link make more sense now?

why focus on the op, focus on what I said. how does the question to me pertain to what I said?

 

[_Sal]

it isn't an artificial social policy for a child who needs food

 

[Henrin]

it isn't an artificial social policy for a child who needs food

Their need for food doesn't make it somehow not artificial. Laws are artificial constructs no matter how much people think they are needed.

 

[_Sal]

Their need for food doesn't make it somehow not artificial. Laws are artificial constructs no matter how much people think they are needed.

okay, point taken, thanks :thumbs:

 

[Aberration]

That's fine and dandy for assets, but I get the sense that judges want to see men and women fight over their children like scraps of meat.

I dont care what judges want. They are not put in the position to serve their own desires.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Celebrity]

Wait, you mean women can't urinate standing up, so women's bathrooms don't have urinals? Sounds pretty sexist.

Is the economic policy of urinals based on sex? :roll:

• There is absolutely no question that any parent involved in making voluntary custody arrangements, or in a custody dispute, are entitled to -- and have plenty of time to arrange -- legal representation.

• There are few situations where the woman can afford an attorney, but the man cannot.

• Yet again, nothing in your comments even remotely acknowledges that ultimately, child support is about the welfare of THE CHILD.

What good is an attorney when the law is discriminatory? That is my point, and I'm quite certain you understand the analogy between legal protection and prophylactic contraception.

 

[SDET]

Is there such a thing as a non-artificial or "natural" social policy? The policy exists in order to help children in single-parent homes avoid extreme poverty. Of course this can be abused, but to imply it was created to give women an extra tight grasp on a man's balls doesn't really follow.

Not created, put has been perverted into that, especially with no-fault divorce.

 

[Visbek]

What good is an attorney when the law is discriminatory? That is my point, and I'm quite certain you understand the analogy between legal protection and prophylactic contraception.

What I understand is that the MRA position against child support is morally bankrupt, because it utterly fails to recognize that the primary purpose of it is to maintain and protect the welfare of the child.

You DO understand that "child support" is not the same thing as "alimony," yes?

I also understand that the ability of a woman to have an abortion, while a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, is not "discriminatory." Nor does -- or should it -- have any influence on the responsibility of caring for the child.

 

[Henrin]

What I understand is that the MRA position against child support is morally bankrupt, because it utterly fails to recognize that the primary purpose of it is to maintain and protect the welfare of the child.

You DO understand that "child support" is not the same thing as "alimony," yes?

I also understand that the ability of a woman to have an abortion, while a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, is not "discriminatory." Nor does -- or should it -- have any influence on the responsibility of caring for the child.

Allowing men the right to choose to be a father is not morally bankrupt. Promoting men choose against becoming a father might be though.

Btw, there is actually several feminists that agree with the MRA on this issue. I know that is strange considering the MRA and feminists are enemies, but well, I guess the universe forgets things at times.

 

[Celebrity]

What I understand is that the MRA position against child support is morally bankrupt, because it utterly fails to recognize that the primary purpose of it is to maintain and protect the welfare of the child.

If that is true, then why does the burden lie on people who are men, as opposed to the government which enforces and administers the maintenance and protection of children?

You DO understand that "child support" is not the same thing as "alimony," yes?

Yes! That's why I started the thread in Sex and Sexuality. This discussion intentionally includes children born out of wedlock who the government does not support, i.e. the children whose parents are co-opted (commandeered) by the government.

I also understand that the ability of a woman to have an abortion, while a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, is not "discriminatory." Nor does -- or should it -- have any influence on the responsibility of caring for the child.

Indeed, because a woman's abortion is the prerogative of a woman. Likewise, men should have the ability to abort in their own right. Sex and Sexuality is a broad issue which includes both biology and sociology. In this thread, try to think about the social consequences of the concept of abortion and how it applies to men. Presently, men are not allowed to have a say in the matter. Men should be able to choose to not take part in the course of action chosen by women, at no detriment to any woman's physical body, or finance.

 

[ludin]

Are you seriously starting this thread again?

don't want to pay child support don't get her pregnant.

 

[Henrin]

Are you seriously starting this thread again?

don't want to pay child support don't get her pregnant.

He started the thread yesterday, so no, he is not starting the thread again.

 

[Visbek]

If that is true, then why does the burden lie on people who are men, as opposed to the government which enforces and administers the maintenance and protection of children?

Uh, hello?

Women earn less than men, and are more likely to have custody.

We should also note that not all recipients of child support are women; about 10% are men.

Yes! That's why I started the thread in Sex and Sexuality. This discussion intentionally includes children born out of wedlock who the government does not support, i.e. the children whose parents are co-opted (commandeered) by the government.

And yet, your comments have absolutely no recognition that the purpose of child support is to support children.


Indeed, because a woman's abortion is the prerogative of a woman. Likewise, men should have the ability to abort in their own right. Sex and Sexuality is a broad issue which includes both biology and sociology. In this thread, try to think about the social consequences of the concept of abortion and how it applies to men. Presently, men are not allowed to have a say in the matter. Men should be able to choose to not take part in the course of action chosen by women, at no detriment to any woman's physical body, or finance.[/QUOTE]

 

[Visbek]

If that is true, then why does the burden lie on people who are men, as opposed to the government which enforces and administers the maintenance and protection of children?

Uh, hello?

Women earn less than men, and are more likely to have custody.

We most certainly do not want every child of divorced parents to go into state custody.

We should also note that not all recipients of child support are women; about 10% are men.

Yes! That's why I started the thread in Sex and Sexuality. This discussion intentionally includes children born out of wedlock who the government does not support, i.e. the children whose parents are co-opted (commandeered) by the government.

And yet, your comments have absolutely no recognition that the purpose of child support is to support children.

No one is being "co-opted" or "commandeered." The government didn't tell you where to put your dick. They certainly didn't tell you to forget the condoms.

You seem to think the only reason for child support is to screw over men. At a minimum, your comments -- and lack of reaction to a repeated reminder that the purpose of child support is to support children -- indicate you fundamentally misunderstand the concept.

Indeed, because a woman's abortion is the prerogative of a woman. Likewise, men should have the ability to abort in their own right.

Men have absolutely no right, ethically or legally, to force a woman to have an abortion. By the same token, no woman should have the right to force a man to have a vasectomy, or to freeze his sperm against his will.

If a man doesn't want to have a child, he has plenty of options. Such as....

Sex and Sexuality is a broad issue which includes both biology and sociology. In this thread, try to think about the social consequences of the concept of abortion and how it applies to men. Presently, men are not allowed to have a say in the matter.

Incorrect.

Men do have some influence, as they can most certainly request the woman get an abortion. What they don't have is the right to force a woman to obey the man's unilateral command.

The social, legal, and ethical consequences of letting a man compel a woman to have an abortion are as obvious as they are horrendous, and a definite non-starter. As are your attempts to delegitimize child support on this basis.

Stop bitching, and pay your damned child support.