From an email from ACFC (American Coalition for Fathers and Children):
"The campaign to confront Child Support Agencies and their inhumane practices toward child support payers is off to a rousing start. But there’s more…One basis of this campaign is disgust over how child support officials identify child support payers as ‘turnips.’ We provided a link to a National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) training program titled: “Getting Blood from a Turnip: New Farming Techniques for Increasing Your Yield.”
Apparently folks at NCSEA got the message, sort of. Within hours of the start of the ‘Save the Turnips’ campaign NCSEA programmers had changed the website and pulled the reference to obligors as ‘Turnips.’ Of course, we thought you would like to see those ‘before and after’ alterations. The NCSEA is apparently still farming, just not specifically ‘turnips.’
If only the decades of damage these people have done to families through their campaigns to vilify child support obligors was as easy as altering a webpage.
---
You know, I just think that men are more than Turnips to be bled is all.
These men have nothing left to give women or women's children / family. These men can not support themselves much less a woman and her children. Many men are out of work. 82% of all jobs lost in The Great Recession or what is being called the "mancession" have been men but women petitioned the government to divert the Stimulus Package to women in growing industries and the request was granted! Many men supporting their ex-family and ex-children can not even afford to have and support a new family of their own or even support themselves at the moment.
Most lack of pay to women is from the inability to pay them. Even when he can pay her the chances of him doing so increase proportionally to the amount of time he gets to be involved with his children.
These men do the best they can. Even if they could form another family like women can the risk of being cast out yet again as an isolated resource producing male is just to great to take a chance.
I pray that at very least women will petition their government to free these men from their jail cages, share parenting responsibilities and then support themselves financially. I pray women's government can have mercy upon male turnips.
Many of these women have already found another male to support the matriarchal family. These men as well are potential isolated resource producing males at the moment or are potential male turnips in the making.
I don't know how much longer we can collectively redistribute men's production capacity to support women's choices and our own lack of right to be fathers to our children. Children need fathers. What incentive is there for men to produce in the first place but by enfranchisement as members of the family?
I just wish instead of valuing men as a collective and socialized re-distributors of our providing capacity we were valued as fathers to children and could share parenting. I just wish by incentive of law that men were needed in some capacity as members of the family. I think if men had the right to be equally needed in the family or post dissolution of said family we could at least be involved in the lives of our children. I believe it might decrease the incentive given to women to abandon their family (women initiate 70+% of divorce and particularly the majority of divorces involving children). According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."
It makes sense that perhaps women could have some sort of equal liability, responsibility, reciprocal obligation and accountability to family...or...toward the consequences of disolving said family. It's all very sad what means to an end men have been made to become.
If only men could have a role in society, it's future and the lives of our children. I never understood why men are the ones expected to get on our knees to make a marriage proposal and offer resources to females. I don't really understand what is in it for men. I think this custom is from a time before women changed marriage laws in the 70's toward the ends of default female child custody and no-fault entitlement laws. I think marriage is a humiliating proposition for men. Among other issues afoot between the sexes I think perhaps what might be missing in the assessment upon the decline of marriage in our culture is the very real reluctance of a male incentive to commit to ending up members of a State\woman owned "Turnip" farm.
90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.
[1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]
Posts
1 comment:
Women are not programed to see inequities toward men. To them it is our biological place.
Biologically all that matters is the female. This is why in some species they eat the male for food after mating. Women are programmed to see men as a means to an end for themselves and their offspring. Hypergamy and gynocentricity is their nature.
Male lack of welfare, suffering, pain, death, use and utility is part of the role she sees males are supposed to play to her. The more he sacrifices the more worthy he is to her.
It is the harsh truth of the matter when you take a step back and look at the objective picture. Females are more important than males and we are treated likewise.
Marriage is not about men. The only reason it was previously was to give men something in return. Marriage is about a woman and what is seen as her offspring. Men are simply a means to an end.
Traditional marriage or patriarchy was designed to limit how far women will take the exploitation and use of male use and utility. It is their nature to extend this threshold of the use of males continually.
There is no limit to it.
Female political agency is acted forth likewise. This is why women have special laws in all realms. It is only natural to give her “women first” admissions to college despite the merit of males seeking admission. It is the reason the Stimulus Package was devoted to them upon their request though 82% of jobs lost have been to men. It is the reason men died on the Titanic.
Men need only read a quote from women’s representatives upon the men who died on the Titanic:
“It must be admitted that the lives of women are more useful to the race than the lives of men.”
(New York Times, April 19, 1912)
The above is built into them. It’s not like women were standing there bickering on who was going to go down with the ship. We would not gladly send them down with it. It does not work that way with them. They knew who they wanted to go down with it and it was not themselves.
It is the reason their health is more important and likewise huge amounts of funding and federal offices are opened to attend to it.
We must understand that she is naturally more worthy, more valuable and more worthy than men and this is why she is treated as such.
The good thing is that their nature and hypergamy has come to bite them in the ass. They are designed to push men to our breaking point, this is what her biology sees as a worthy male i.e. who ever can meet or exceed her breaking point.
Through her political agency however she has inadvertently pushed passed this limit. The “government male” was willing to go that far but individual males are not and thus you have our situation today.
What is happening in all realms of law and policy is entirely understandable given her nature and male nature to give in to it.
However, though the government has given in, the levels to which female hypergamy has been attended to has surpassed the bar for which individual men are enfranchised.
I believe men are withdrawing
Post a Comment