Debtor's Prison. The practice of imprisoning people for debt was supposedly abolished decades ago in this country, yet "deadbeat dads" are constantly menaced with jail time, in some cases perpetual imprisonment until they pay their "debt".
+
This is part of the insanity that has gripped society as a direct result of caving in to Radical Feminism, altho in this instance the feminists hpocritically want to be dependent on men's money!
+
The vilification of men who "abandon" their family — because they are robbed of their family by divorce courts — is a contemptible feature of the excessive and corrupting power of the women's vote. Women, those supposedly caring and decent people who promote compassion, are seen by legislators as demanding that men be victimized by divorce and child-custody laws to the end of their lives. Is that a correct reading of women's sentiment? Or are legislators merely pandering to the worst elements in the feminist movement?
+
Women who claim to be equal to men and demand equal rights, "equal pay for equal work", and all the rest of the feminist agenda, nonetheless want men who don't pay alimony or child support to be arrested and imprisoned until they pay up! Where are all these brave female-equality types when it comes to supporting themselves and the children they insist on taking away from the father?
+
The New York Post today reports that a cancer doctor was arrested in New York City when he came to deliver a speech, and is to be held in jail for 30 days or until he pays "$85,000, which is just part of the almost $300,000 he owes." At the end of those 30 days, he could leave jail and leave the State of New York — he now lives in California — and thus make collecting his New York "debt" difficult. Because of this, there are 'feminists' who want the Federal Government to hunt down "deadbeat dads" and alimony-refusing ex-husbands anywhere in the country they might move, and visit permanent oppression upon them — unless they leave this ever-more-oppressive country for freer climes.
+
The woman in the case at issue "was awarded $5,000 a month and half the marital assets" in the 2003 divorce decree. On top of that, she was to receive "$7,500 a month to support their [now] 16-year-old twins, Maxwell and Sasha". The mother "gave up her career as a stockbroker to raise the twins". And now she has stolen them from the father but insists he continue to pay for them. That's exactly like a car thief demanding that the victim continue to make car payments on the thief's new ride.
+
Let's be clear here. The woman in this case is perfectly capable of supporting herself and her children, especially with half the marital assets, which have to amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars at the least, given the size of the alimony and child-support awards.
+
The kids are nearly grown, and could easily take part-time jobs, as regular kids often do to help out. Except there's no way in hell these rich kids would have to lift a finger to keep house and home together. Their mother is bitching because she's not getting TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH! from her ex-husband.
+
By what stretch of whose fevered imagination is a woman entitled to $12,500 a MONTH?!?, in a country where the typical working person makes perhaps $25,000 a YEAR (that is, the equivalent of a mere two months of this woman's "rightful" claim on her husband's income), from a man she is no longer married to?
+
If you want a man's support, STAY MARRIED to him. Don't divorce and then continue to claim HIS income. You already took HALF HIS ASSETS. If you can't live off that, how the hell is he supposed to live off his half? Oh, that's right: he works. Work for a living yourself, like the rest of us, you lazy bitch!
+
The twins aren't infants who need you at their side every hour of the day. Tens of millions of mothers of small children work for a living. You have a very valuable skill: stockbroker. Go back to work. Stop stealing from a man you have already victimized in taking half the marriage's assets, ALL paid for by him in the first place — AND HIS KIDS!
+
The divorce and child-custody laws of this country are a nitemare, and must be reformed from the ground up, starting with the premise that unmarried people have no claim upon each other, of any kind. It makes no more sense to say that an ex-husband owes his wife money than that he owes her sexual fidelity. No he doesn't. Absent a marriage, he owes her NOTHING. She is just one of six billion strangers, who has no more claim on him than last nite's casual date.
+
People are supposed to stay together for the children, remember? That's supposedly what marriage is for, according to the conservatives who insist that gay men mustn't be permitted to marry because marriage is to benefit children. If you refuse to stay together, and refuse to give custody of the children to the husband, take the financial responsibility with the children. Don't take the children away from their father but demand that he continue to pay for them as tho he still had control over their upbringing.
+
To deny a man his parental rights but insist he continue to shoulder parental responsibilities is insanely unjust.
+
Responsibilities carry rights, just as much as rights carry responsibilities. No rights? No responsibilities.
+
(I undergo reconstructive knee surgery tomorrow, June 22nd, and may not be able to add to this blog for a few days. Then again, I might be unable to post for only a day or two. We'll see.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 10:23 AM