NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/singles/34710

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!texsun!exucom.exu.ericsson.se!s07a08!exudtn
From: [e-mail] (Derek Nelson, xt-dL)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contrac
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:01:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Lines: 58
Nntp-Posting-Host: s07a08.exu.ericsson.se
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenn Barry) writes:
>
>)    Let me put it in plain language, Kevin: if you father a kid you
>)don't want, you've got my sympathy up to the point where I and my fellow
>)taxpayers end up paying for it. And that's what happens more than half
>)the time - single mothers not getting child support account for about
>)80% of family aid. I'm happy to pay to keep kids from starving, but I
>)insist the first obligation is the parents', both of them. You may not
>)want to pay, but I don't, either, and I didn't even get to fuck her :-).
>)Don't expect sympathy or support from me for your failure to be a
>)responsible adult. The sexual equality argument is bullshit. What you
>)are really asking for is public financial support for certain men's lack
>)of responsibility. Forget it. No way. They owe; they pay.
>
>If society was actually going after so-called 'dead-beat dads' because
>there was actually no alternative - the woman was *really* stuck with the
>kid with no alternative - I could feel more sympathy for this viewpoint.
>However, that is not the case a lot of the time.  There could be adoptive
>parents ready, willing, and able to support the child - and the system will
>go after the father to pay to keep the kid with the mother.  So 'the system'
>is not subsidizing just the kid, it's subsidizing 'motherhood' - IMO.
>
Hmmm. You sorry sack.  So if she is too poor to keep her child she has
to give it away for the good of the states budget?  I don't think that's
really what your advocating is it?

>Much of the problem with single unwed mothers not getting support from the
>father appears to be because they don't name him, though I lack the specific
>data on this - (I'm not sure if it's available.)

In the State of Texas, from wince I hail, an un-wed mother must state
who the father is in order to receive support.  This way the state goes
after the dad.  In the case of multiple men possibly being the father I
have no idea how that is handled.

>This shows a problem with
>the current idea of making the man entirely 'responsible' for fathering
>the child - you often don't even know who he is.  We do not seem to do much
>to make the mother 'responsible' for having the kid, and seem to go out of
>our way to pay the mother to keep her kid even when there are alternatives
>available.
>
Hmmmm.  You sorry sack. Alternatives available?  So your message is if
you are poor in America today you can't keep your child because there
are better parents out there just dying to have a child.  Or perhaps your
advocating aborting every child the state doesn't want to pay for?

>I really think we should de-emphasize going after so-called 'deadbeat dads'
>in the name of 'responsibility', and simply look for other means to solve
>the problem.

Yes, I agree here.  Like preventing the pregancy before it occurs through
education of both men and women.  Men must learn to accept more
responsibility to prevent pregancy.  Cheaper birth control for women,
whose men learned nothing from the afore mentioned education. Or
after the child is born, having a good economy so that their are places
for the parents to work.  Plus in said economy, have affordable child care.