All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
At one time, inheritance was strictly to the male heirs. Some women ended up owning some of the wealth of course but wealth was basically in the hands of men.
Men decided just how much wealth was to go to their sons. Consideration of women was secondary.
Consider.
Women, when stressed by financial considerations do not produce the best children. The more stress a woman has when pregnant and after while rearing the child, the less of a child and adult she will have produced. This is not good for society.
To improve society as a whole, now that half of the children grow up in poverty and lack of opportunity, I think men must step up and take more of the burden. Parental love demands that we change our ways.
Women are clearly failing to do what is required, in terms of family and quality of offspring, --- thanks to the poor quality of men and how we are financing birth, --- and I think that men of better quality must step up and shift the financial burden away from women. This would produce unstressed births and better human beings. I see it as a man’s social duty.
It would also be a rite of passage for young men who are producing all of the bastard children that we see everywhere and who are stuck in a financial doldrums that is holding us all back as a wealthy society.
Women presently hold most of the financial burden for child rearing and this is detrimental to all of society. Should we as a society do the right thing and un-stress the births in our country and thus produce better people?
We keep talking about women’s reproductive rights. I think we should be talking about men’s duty in terms of reproductive rights and responsibility. Our children deserve this.
We men have shirked their duty to society by allowing the production of less than the best possible births. We are shirking our duty to our children if we do not bear the financial burden of the best possible births/rearing. I think that if things are to improve, men will have to do the right thing and foot the bills.
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6631
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
You really are a disgusting male chauvinist pig. I agree certain men must step up, but that doesn't change my opinion of you.
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
AnneBoleyn;1493260 wrote: You really are a disgusting male chauvinist pig. I agree certain men must step up, but that doesn't change my opinion of you.
I was going to be much less polite.
I was going to be much less polite.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
I was going to reply to this thread...but I decided I have better things to do.
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
AnneBoleyn;1493260 wrote: You really are a disgusting male chauvinist pig. I agree certain men must step up, but that doesn't change my opinion of you.
Even more examples of his hypocrisy regarding morality / immorality.
Even more examples of his hypocrisy regarding morality / immorality.
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16987
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Is this just a wind up thread ??
He's not serious surely? :-3
Crumbs, excuse me whilst I go talk to some real men that treat me as an equal :p
He's not serious surely? :-3
Crumbs, excuse me whilst I go talk to some real men that treat me as an equal :p
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16987
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
This is also in the wrong category, 'Current Political Events' :yh_rotfl moe like stone-age political events.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Nice that none here care that women are left holding the bag of costs to child bearing rearing while deadbeat dads go find their next incubator.
Abortions, who cares. They are just potential humans.
Future hardship and a lot of social and criminal problems for society come from the 40 odd % of single family homes but who cares.
No wonder, with such fools, that Islam is taking you over so easily.
Regards
DL
Abortions, who cares. They are just potential humans.
Future hardship and a lot of social and criminal problems for society come from the 40 odd % of single family homes but who cares.
No wonder, with such fools, that Islam is taking you over so easily.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Betty Boop;1493280 wrote: This is also in the wrong category, 'Current Political Events' :yh_rotfl moe like stone-age political events.
Better to have so many deadbeat dads than the old days where men cared about their offspring. Right?
Regards
DL
Better to have so many deadbeat dads than the old days where men cared about their offspring. Right?
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493496 wrote: Better to have so many deadbeat dads than the old days where men cared about their offspring. Right?
Regards
DL
Deadbeat dads are nothing new to the world.
Regards
DL
Deadbeat dads are nothing new to the world.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493495 wrote: Nice that none here care that women are left holding the bag of costs to child bearing rearing while deadbeat dads go find their next incubator.
Actually, we care very much about that problem. We just don't agree with your extremist views of holding only one sex responsible for everything.
Abortions, who cares. They are just potential humans.
Quite right. "Potential" being the operational word here and not "actual." Do you believe the an unwanted, uncared for, or neglected child is a better solution than no child at all in a situation like that? You'd force poor, illiterate, or women unable to care for a child to have one when there is another solution?
Future hardship and a lot of social and criminal problems for society come from the 40 odd percent of single family homes but who cares.
Well I care. As a matter of fact, I educate children, specifically young men,every day. Putting forth a positive model of long term marriage and family life while counseling them on the proper behavior for an honest and upright man. I steer all my young male students, (the very demographic that has the most problem with this) to my website which has a link to "The Art of Manliness." This is an excellent website on how to be a man and full of lessons that used to be passed by fathers to their children.
Mr. Ives Cyberhome
The Art of Manliness
What are you doing about the problem? Just ranting without action is useless.
No wonder, with such fools, that Islam is taking you over so easily.Regards DL
What the devil are you talking about? I don't see a single Muslim where I live. Actually, I have never seen one. And if one wanted to "take me over." I think they'd find that difficult. I live in the Old West.
Actually, we care very much about that problem. We just don't agree with your extremist views of holding only one sex responsible for everything.
Abortions, who cares. They are just potential humans.
Quite right. "Potential" being the operational word here and not "actual." Do you believe the an unwanted, uncared for, or neglected child is a better solution than no child at all in a situation like that? You'd force poor, illiterate, or women unable to care for a child to have one when there is another solution?
Future hardship and a lot of social and criminal problems for society come from the 40 odd percent of single family homes but who cares.
Well I care. As a matter of fact, I educate children, specifically young men,every day. Putting forth a positive model of long term marriage and family life while counseling them on the proper behavior for an honest and upright man. I steer all my young male students, (the very demographic that has the most problem with this) to my website which has a link to "The Art of Manliness." This is an excellent website on how to be a man and full of lessons that used to be passed by fathers to their children.
Mr. Ives Cyberhome
The Art of Manliness
What are you doing about the problem? Just ranting without action is useless.
No wonder, with such fools, that Islam is taking you over so easily.Regards DL
What the devil are you talking about? I don't see a single Muslim where I live. Actually, I have never seen one. And if one wanted to "take me over." I think they'd find that difficult. I live in the Old West.
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
There are many flaws in your statement. To wit:
"Women, when stressed by financial considerations do not produce the best children. The more stress a woman has when pregnant and after while rearing the child, the less of a child and adult she will have produced. This is not good for society."
and
"Women are clearly failing to do what is required, in terms of family and quality of offspring, --- thanks to the poor quality of men and how we are financing birth, --- and I think that men of better quality must step up and shift the financial burden away from women. This would produce unstressed births and better human beings. I see it as a man’s social duty."
In my case I was a single mom, raising my 3 daughters in an era when it was much more difficult for a woman than it is now. They had a deadbeat father who didn't pay child support. Sometimes I worked 2 jobs. I had to accept food stamps once, which I detested. My children have become a teacher, a microbiologist and a registered nurse, each the finest in her field.
"Women, when stressed by financial considerations do not produce the best children. The more stress a woman has when pregnant and after while rearing the child, the less of a child and adult she will have produced. This is not good for society."
and
"Women are clearly failing to do what is required, in terms of family and quality of offspring, --- thanks to the poor quality of men and how we are financing birth, --- and I think that men of better quality must step up and shift the financial burden away from women. This would produce unstressed births and better human beings. I see it as a man’s social duty."
In my case I was a single mom, raising my 3 daughters in an era when it was much more difficult for a woman than it is now. They had a deadbeat father who didn't pay child support. Sometimes I worked 2 jobs. I had to accept food stamps once, which I detested. My children have become a teacher, a microbiologist and a registered nurse, each the finest in her field.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
LarsMac;1493499 wrote: Deadbeat dads are nothing new to the world.
True but the new part is the growing numbers and the fact that even men who are not deadbeat dads do not speak against that immoral practice.
Regards
DL
True but the new part is the growing numbers and the fact that even men who are not deadbeat dads do not speak against that immoral practice.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Saint_;1493501 wrote: Actually, we care very much about that problem. We just don't agree with your extremist views of holding only one sex responsible for everything.
Quite right. "Potential" being the operational word here and not "actual." Do you believe the an unwanted, uncared for, or neglected child is a better solution than no child at all in a situation like that? You'd force poor, illiterate, or women unable to care for a child to have one when there is another solution?
Well I care. As a matter of fact, I educate children, specifically young men,every day. Putting forth a positive model of long term marriage and family life while counseling them on the proper behavior for an honest and upright man. I steer all my young male students, (the very demographic that has the most problem with this) to my website which has a link to "The Art of Manliness." This is an excellent website on how to be a man and full of lessons that used to be passed by fathers to their children.
Mr. Ives Cyberhome
The Art of Manliness
What are you doing about the problem? Just ranting without action is useless.
What the devil are you talking about? I don't see a single Muslim where I live. Actually, I have never seen one. And if one wanted to "take me over." I think they'd find that difficult. I live in the Old West.
I took you for a Brit, which is what most are here. Strange though that you have never seen a Muslim. You must be cloistered or shut in.
"You'd force poor, illiterate, or women unable to care for a child to have one when there is another solution?
This is just stupid.
Where in hell did you see me say anything about forcing women to have a baby?
You might want to re-read the O.P. more slowly but I will sure be pleased to have the quote you see saying such garbage.
Regards
DL
Quite right. "Potential" being the operational word here and not "actual." Do you believe the an unwanted, uncared for, or neglected child is a better solution than no child at all in a situation like that? You'd force poor, illiterate, or women unable to care for a child to have one when there is another solution?
Well I care. As a matter of fact, I educate children, specifically young men,every day. Putting forth a positive model of long term marriage and family life while counseling them on the proper behavior for an honest and upright man. I steer all my young male students, (the very demographic that has the most problem with this) to my website which has a link to "The Art of Manliness." This is an excellent website on how to be a man and full of lessons that used to be passed by fathers to their children.
Mr. Ives Cyberhome
The Art of Manliness
What are you doing about the problem? Just ranting without action is useless.
What the devil are you talking about? I don't see a single Muslim where I live. Actually, I have never seen one. And if one wanted to "take me over." I think they'd find that difficult. I live in the Old West.
I took you for a Brit, which is what most are here. Strange though that you have never seen a Muslim. You must be cloistered or shut in.
"You'd force poor, illiterate, or women unable to care for a child to have one when there is another solution?
This is just stupid.
Where in hell did you see me say anything about forcing women to have a baby?
You might want to re-read the O.P. more slowly but I will sure be pleased to have the quote you see saying such garbage.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
ZAP;1493506 wrote: There are many flaws in your statement. To wit:
"Women, when stressed by financial considerations do not produce the best children. The more stress a woman has when pregnant and after while rearing the child, the less of a child and adult she will have produced. This is not good for society."
and
"Women are clearly failing to do what is required, in terms of family and quality of offspring, --- thanks to the poor quality of men and how we are financing birth, --- and I think that men of better quality must step up and shift the financial burden away from women. This would produce unstressed births and better human beings. I see it as a man’s social duty."
In my case I was a single mom, raising my 3 daughters in an era when it was much more difficult for a woman than it is now. They had a deadbeat father who didn't pay child support. Sometimes I worked 2 jobs. I had to accept food stamps once, which I detested. My children have become a teacher, a microbiologist and a registered nurse, each the finest in her field.
All well and good and congratulations, --- but your anecdotal rendering does not eliminate the vast majority of cases that statistics point to.
You might note that governments are even using breakfasts in schools because the poor learn better when fed properly. Less stress is good for learning.
Regards
DL
"Women, when stressed by financial considerations do not produce the best children. The more stress a woman has when pregnant and after while rearing the child, the less of a child and adult she will have produced. This is not good for society."
and
"Women are clearly failing to do what is required, in terms of family and quality of offspring, --- thanks to the poor quality of men and how we are financing birth, --- and I think that men of better quality must step up and shift the financial burden away from women. This would produce unstressed births and better human beings. I see it as a man’s social duty."
In my case I was a single mom, raising my 3 daughters in an era when it was much more difficult for a woman than it is now. They had a deadbeat father who didn't pay child support. Sometimes I worked 2 jobs. I had to accept food stamps once, which I detested. My children have become a teacher, a microbiologist and a registered nurse, each the finest in her field.
All well and good and congratulations, --- but your anecdotal rendering does not eliminate the vast majority of cases that statistics point to.
You might note that governments are even using breakfasts in schools because the poor learn better when fed properly. Less stress is good for learning.
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
It takes 2 to make a baby. It should take that same 2 to finance it. Religion doesn't even come into it.
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Take the situation, that often happens, where the woman chooses to have a baby without consulting the man (husband, boyfriend, stranger on a one night stand, ...). Should the man be forced to support the child for the next eighteen years?
Take the situation where the woman, from birth, denies the man any contact or interaction with the child. Should the man be forced to support the child for the next eighteen years?
Take the situation where the woman, from birth, denies the man any contact or interaction with the child. Should the man be forced to support the child for the next eighteen years?
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
FourPart;1493628 wrote: It takes 2 to make a baby. It should take that same 2 to finance it. Religion doesn't even come into it.
I agree with your first but not completely with your second.
As a man, I think it has always been to men to be the protector of the family. That has been our historic view. Men fought wars not women.
Women have to carry and then feed their children after birth. They also need the time to recover from delivery. Men thus have to take the more active role in paying for their children and family.
Sure, after costs are reduced and women are no longer so important to the new born, financial conditions could change but Men have to step up in the beginning or there would be no children unless the woman took on all the responsibilities.
When there is a deadbeat dad involved the takes two to finance ideal no longer exists.
I think he should be forced to do as much as he can as I do not believe that it is to tax payers to support other peoples children. We do not get the pleasure of their parenting so should not have to bear the cost of it unless necessary.
Regards
DL
I agree with your first but not completely with your second.
As a man, I think it has always been to men to be the protector of the family. That has been our historic view. Men fought wars not women.
Women have to carry and then feed their children after birth. They also need the time to recover from delivery. Men thus have to take the more active role in paying for their children and family.
Sure, after costs are reduced and women are no longer so important to the new born, financial conditions could change but Men have to step up in the beginning or there would be no children unless the woman took on all the responsibilities.
When there is a deadbeat dad involved the takes two to finance ideal no longer exists.
I think he should be forced to do as much as he can as I do not believe that it is to tax payers to support other peoples children. We do not get the pleasure of their parenting so should not have to bear the cost of it unless necessary.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Bryn Mawr;1493641 wrote: Take the situation, that often happens, where the woman chooses to have a baby without consulting the man (husband, boyfriend, stranger on a one night stand, ...). Should the man be forced to support the child for the next eighteen years?
Take the situation where the woman, from birth, denies the man any contact or interaction with the child. Should the man be forced to support the child for the next eighteen years?
Yes and yes. Although in your second, the man would be granted access by the law.
You do not seem to like force being applied to the father, but do not seem to mind force being applied to the rest of us as tax payers, --- who end up supporting another man's child.
Can you explain what I see as a double standard?
Regards
DL
Take the situation where the woman, from birth, denies the man any contact or interaction with the child. Should the man be forced to support the child for the next eighteen years?
Yes and yes. Although in your second, the man would be granted access by the law.
You do not seem to like force being applied to the father, but do not seem to mind force being applied to the rest of us as tax payers, --- who end up supporting another man's child.
Can you explain what I see as a double standard?
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493664 wrote: Yes and yes. Although in your second, the man would be granted access by the law.
You do not seem to like force being applied to the father, but do not seem to mind force being applied to the rest of us as tax payers, --- who end up supporting another man's child.
Can you explain what I see as a double standard?
Regards
DL
The idea of forcing either father or mother into your authoritarian solution is repugnant.
Besides, the cost of enforcing such a thing would be higher that the costs of a few mothers receiving assistance from the State.
You do not seem to like force being applied to the father, but do not seem to mind force being applied to the rest of us as tax payers, --- who end up supporting another man's child.
Can you explain what I see as a double standard?
Regards
DL
The idea of forcing either father or mother into your authoritarian solution is repugnant.
Besides, the cost of enforcing such a thing would be higher that the costs of a few mothers receiving assistance from the State.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493664 wrote: Yes and yes. Although in your second, the man would be granted access by the law.
You do not seem to like force being applied to the father, but do not seem to mind force being applied to the rest of us as tax payers, --- who end up supporting another man's child.
Can you explain what I see as a double standard?
Regards
DL
Why do you assume that every single mother is dependant on the state? It is not the case so your argument is invalid.
You do not seem to like force being applied to the father, but do not seem to mind force being applied to the rest of us as tax payers, --- who end up supporting another man's child.
Can you explain what I see as a double standard?
Regards
DL
Why do you assume that every single mother is dependant on the state? It is not the case so your argument is invalid.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
LarsMac;1493666 wrote: The idea of forcing either father or mother into your authoritarian solution is repugnant.
Besides, the cost of enforcing such a thing would be higher that the costs of a few mothers receiving assistance from the State.
A few!!
Go check your facts. Although the numbers should not change the policy
Strange that you do not see the idea of forcing taxpayers to support a deadbeat dads child in your authoritarian world as more repugnant.
Regards
DL
Besides, the cost of enforcing such a thing would be higher that the costs of a few mothers receiving assistance from the State.
A few!!
Go check your facts. Although the numbers should not change the policy
Strange that you do not see the idea of forcing taxpayers to support a deadbeat dads child in your authoritarian world as more repugnant.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Bryn Mawr;1493667 wrote: Why do you assume that every single mother is dependant on the state? It is not the case so your argument is invalid.
I did not and you use that as a cop out to not answer the question of your double standard.
Thanks for the honest discourse. Not.
Regards
DL
I did not and you use that as a cop out to not answer the question of your double standard.
Thanks for the honest discourse. Not.
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493669 wrote: I did not and you use that as a cop out to not answer the question of your double standard.
Thanks for the honest discourse. Not.
Regards
DL
You give the choice as an either or - either the father supports the child or the state does. How is this not assuming that all single mothers are dependant on the state?
Thanks for the honest discourse. Not.
Regards
DL
You give the choice as an either or - either the father supports the child or the state does. How is this not assuming that all single mothers are dependant on the state?
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Bryn Mawr;1493670 wrote: You give the choice as an either or - either the father supports the child or the state does. How is this not assuming that all single mothers are dependant on the state?
For the purposes of the O.P., It was not necessary to speak of all the various possible household possibilities including rich women.
Where deadbeat dads were a needed or wanted condition, in terms of contribution to the household, was the main focus of the O.P.
Not situations where such was not wanted or needed..
Regards
DL
For the purposes of the O.P., It was not necessary to speak of all the various possible household possibilities including rich women.
Where deadbeat dads were a needed or wanted condition, in terms of contribution to the household, was the main focus of the O.P.
Not situations where such was not wanted or needed..
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493671 wrote: For the purposes of the O.P., It was not necessary to speak of all the various possible household possibilities including rich women.
Where deadbeat dads were a needed or wanted condition, in terms of contribution to the household, was the main focus of the O.P.
Not situations where such was not wanted or needed..
Regards
DL
I'm not talking about the OP, I'm talking about the following :-
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493664 wrote: Yes and yes. Although in your second, the man would be granted access by the law.
You do not seem to like force being applied to the father, but do not seem to mind force being applied to the rest of us as tax payers, --- who end up supporting another man's child.
Can you explain what I see as a double standard?
Regards
DL
To drop the verbage, if we do not apply force to the father then the taxpayer will end up supporting another man's child - I can see no other reading of your statement in normal English. It is an unconditional statement that "the rest of us" will "end up supporting another man's child".
Where deadbeat dads were a needed or wanted condition, in terms of contribution to the household, was the main focus of the O.P.
Not situations where such was not wanted or needed..
Regards
DL
I'm not talking about the OP, I'm talking about the following :-
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493664 wrote: Yes and yes. Although in your second, the man would be granted access by the law.
You do not seem to like force being applied to the father, but do not seem to mind force being applied to the rest of us as tax payers, --- who end up supporting another man's child.
Can you explain what I see as a double standard?
Regards
DL
To drop the verbage, if we do not apply force to the father then the taxpayer will end up supporting another man's child - I can see no other reading of your statement in normal English. It is an unconditional statement that "the rest of us" will "end up supporting another man's child".
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Bryn Mawr;1493672 wrote: I'm not talking about the OP, I'm talking about the following :-
To drop the verbage, if we do not apply force to the father then the taxpayer will end up supporting another man's child - I can see no other reading of your statement in normal English. It is an unconditional statement that "the rest of us" will "end up supporting another man's child".
If not tax payers, or the rich mothers whom I ignored as irrelevant, then who?
Regards
DL
To drop the verbage, if we do not apply force to the father then the taxpayer will end up supporting another man's child - I can see no other reading of your statement in normal English. It is an unconditional statement that "the rest of us" will "end up supporting another man's child".
If not tax payers, or the rich mothers whom I ignored as irrelevant, then who?
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493668 wrote: A few!!
Go check your facts. Although the numbers should not change the policy
Strange that you do not see the idea of forcing taxpayers to support a deadbeat dads child in your authoritarian world as more repugnant.
Regards
DL
What facts are there that you wish me to check?
Providing adequate health care and decent child care opportunities would go much further in helping children in poverty than have the state chasing down men and taking what little money they may have to to pay for inadequate child and health care.
Go check your facts. Although the numbers should not change the policy
Strange that you do not see the idea of forcing taxpayers to support a deadbeat dads child in your authoritarian world as more repugnant.
Regards
DL
What facts are there that you wish me to check?
Providing adequate health care and decent child care opportunities would go much further in helping children in poverty than have the state chasing down men and taking what little money they may have to to pay for inadequate child and health care.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493673 wrote: If not tax payers, or the rich mothers whom I ignored as irrelevant, then who?
Regards
DL
The mother herself through holding down a job - despite your obvious belief that a mere woman would be incapable of doing so, many do.
Regards
DL
The mother herself through holding down a job - despite your obvious belief that a mere woman would be incapable of doing so, many do.
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
There are also Single Parent Fathers.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
LarsMac;1493674 wrote: What facts are there that you wish me to check?
Providing adequate health care and decent child care opportunities would go much further in helping children in poverty than have the state chasing down men and taking what little money they may have to to pay for inadequate child and health care.
Facts like 40 odd % of all births are illegitimate. Do you think that shows us training our children to take responsibility for their reproduction well?
To your last.
Again you would force tax payers to pay for what a deadbeat dad should be paying for.
Not to get personal but, are you taking care of your offspring?
If so, why let deadbeat dads off the hook and force the taxpayer to support other peoples children?
Regards
DL
Providing adequate health care and decent child care opportunities would go much further in helping children in poverty than have the state chasing down men and taking what little money they may have to to pay for inadequate child and health care.
Facts like 40 odd % of all births are illegitimate. Do you think that shows us training our children to take responsibility for their reproduction well?
To your last.
Again you would force tax payers to pay for what a deadbeat dad should be paying for.
Not to get personal but, are you taking care of your offspring?
If so, why let deadbeat dads off the hook and force the taxpayer to support other peoples children?
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Bryn Mawr;1493676 wrote: The mother herself through holding down a job - despite your obvious belief that a mere woman would be incapable of doing so, many do.
You are aware that these days, it takes two wages to support most homes.
A woman would be hard pressed to pay for child care while making for poor wages. Some higher earners might do ok though.
Strange how some men want women to work out of the home and in the home as a second job but do not feel the need to compensate her with a deadbeat dads contribution.
It is a good thing that in most countries, the courts are stepping in.
They also need a bit of reform as they are way too far on the women's side most of the time, but in many cases, I do not blame them.
Regards
DL
You are aware that these days, it takes two wages to support most homes.
A woman would be hard pressed to pay for child care while making for poor wages. Some higher earners might do ok though.
Strange how some men want women to work out of the home and in the home as a second job but do not feel the need to compensate her with a deadbeat dads contribution.
It is a good thing that in most countries, the courts are stepping in.
They also need a bit of reform as they are way too far on the women's side most of the time, but in many cases, I do not blame them.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
FourPart;1493679 wrote: There are also Single Parent Fathers.
Absolutely. All that I put here against deadbeat dads I would also say about deadbeat mothers.
Regards
DL
Absolutely. All that I put here against deadbeat dads I would also say about deadbeat mothers.
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493704 wrote: Facts like 40 odd % of all births are illegitimate. Do you think that shows us training our children to take responsibility for their reproduction well?
To your last.
Again you would force tax payers to pay for what a deadbeat dad should be paying for.
Not to get personal but, are you taking care of your offspring?
If so, why let deadbeat dads off the hook and force the taxpayer to support other peoples children?
Regards
DL
Can you back that statistic up because it certainly does not hold where I come from.
To your last.
Again you would force tax payers to pay for what a deadbeat dad should be paying for.
Not to get personal but, are you taking care of your offspring?
If so, why let deadbeat dads off the hook and force the taxpayer to support other peoples children?
Regards
DL
Can you back that statistic up because it certainly does not hold where I come from.
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493704 wrote: Facts like 40 odd % of all births are illegitimate. Do you think that shows us training our children to take responsibility for their reproduction well?
To your last.
Again you would force tax payers to pay for what a deadbeat dad should be paying for.
Not to get personal but, are you taking care of your offspring?
If so, why let deadbeat dads off the hook and force the taxpayer to support other peoples children?
Regards
DL
I don't plan on "Forcing" anyone to do anything.
You use of "illegitimate" is as outdated as your views.
Single women are choosing to have babies, without the complications of marriage.
And, my offspring are now quite capable of caring for themselves and their own children, thank you.
To your last.
Again you would force tax payers to pay for what a deadbeat dad should be paying for.
Not to get personal but, are you taking care of your offspring?
If so, why let deadbeat dads off the hook and force the taxpayer to support other peoples children?
Regards
DL
I don't plan on "Forcing" anyone to do anything.
You use of "illegitimate" is as outdated as your views.
Single women are choosing to have babies, without the complications of marriage.
And, my offspring are now quite capable of caring for themselves and their own children, thank you.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Bryn Mawr;1493707 wrote: Can you back that statistic up because it certainly does not hold where I come from.
Let me do better with this eye opener.
Regards
DL
Let me do better with this eye opener.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
LarsMac;1493713 wrote: I don't plan on "Forcing" anyone to do anything.
You use of "illegitimate" is as outdated as your views.
Single women are choosing to have babies, without the complications of marriage.
And, my offspring are now quite capable of caring for themselves and their own children, thank you.
You may not force payment but your government does with taxpayers.
I am old enough to be outdate and not politically correct. I could have used the word bastard as well. All terms are correct by definition.
You are correct that some girls find the dole more advantageous than putting up with the kind of boys that are spoken of in the link just above.
Your may be old enough but I hope they are making enough coin to pay for other peoples kids because we allow deadbeat dads to spend their money making more babies for us to pay for.
Regards
DL
You use of "illegitimate" is as outdated as your views.
Single women are choosing to have babies, without the complications of marriage.
And, my offspring are now quite capable of caring for themselves and their own children, thank you.
You may not force payment but your government does with taxpayers.
I am old enough to be outdate and not politically correct. I could have used the word bastard as well. All terms are correct by definition.
You are correct that some girls find the dole more advantageous than putting up with the kind of boys that are spoken of in the link just above.
Your may be old enough but I hope they are making enough coin to pay for other peoples kids because we allow deadbeat dads to spend their money making more babies for us to pay for.
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493721 wrote: Let me do better with this eye opener.
Regards
DL
Enough with the YouTube. Do your own homework.
Regards
DL
Enough with the YouTube. Do your own homework.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493722 wrote: You may not force payment but your government does with taxpayers.
I am old enough to be outdate and not politically correct. I could have used the word bastard as well. All terms are correct by definition.
You are correct that some girls find the dole more advantageous than putting up with the kind of boys that are spoken of in the link just above.
Your may be old enough but I hope they are making enough coin to pay for other peoples kids because we allow deadbeat dads to spend their money making more babies for us to pay for.
Regards
DL
So, now you just assume than any woman who decides to have a child without being married is a deadbeat. If that is the case, why would we want to chase down the father to make him pay for her?
You really must live a pathetic world.
I am old enough to be outdate and not politically correct. I could have used the word bastard as well. All terms are correct by definition.
You are correct that some girls find the dole more advantageous than putting up with the kind of boys that are spoken of in the link just above.
Your may be old enough but I hope they are making enough coin to pay for other peoples kids because we allow deadbeat dads to spend their money making more babies for us to pay for.
Regards
DL
So, now you just assume than any woman who decides to have a child without being married is a deadbeat. If that is the case, why would we want to chase down the father to make him pay for her?
You really must live a pathetic world.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493721 wrote: Let me do better with this eye opener.
Regards
DL
That was a total waste of time and nothing to do with my question - can you justify the statistic you put forward as it bears no relation to the facts in the area in which I live.
Regards
DL
That was a total waste of time and nothing to do with my question - can you justify the statistic you put forward as it bears no relation to the facts in the area in which I live.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
LarsMac;1493723 wrote: Enough with the YouTube. Do your own homework.
You asked for stats and I let a professional give them to you with some pertinent information. That is good homework.
Thanks for showing your appreciation in an appropriate manner. Nice manners. Not.
Regards
DL
You asked for stats and I let a professional give them to you with some pertinent information. That is good homework.
Thanks for showing your appreciation in an appropriate manner. Nice manners. Not.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
LarsMac;1493724 wrote: So, now you just assume than any woman who decides to have a child without being married is a deadbeat. If that is the case, why would we want to chase down the father to make him pay for her?
You really must live a pathetic world.
I see that all you have left is ill mannered garbage.
Regards
DL
You really must live a pathetic world.
I see that all you have left is ill mannered garbage.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Bryn Mawr;1493731 wrote: That was a total waste of time and nothing to do with my question - can you justify the statistic you put forward as it bears no relation to the facts in the area in which I live.
Then get your own.
Regards
DL
Then get your own.
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493736 wrote: You asked for stats and I let a professional give them to you with some pertinent information. That is good homework.
Thanks for showing your appreciation in an appropriate manner. Nice manners. Not.
Regards
DL
For you to berate anyone over their manners is laughable.
Thanks for showing your appreciation in an appropriate manner. Nice manners. Not.
Regards
DL
For you to berate anyone over their manners is laughable.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
There are all sorts of reasons for people to be Single Parents. "Deadbeat" parenting is only one of them. There is also the result of unforeseen divorce - often worse for the child for the parents to remain married "for the sake of the children". Then, of course, there is the case of parents becoming Widowed.
Also, aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Marriage was initially a Religious institution, presided upon by the Church.
The primary instinct of all life forms is to procreate. One cannot apply morals to instincts.
Also, aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Marriage was initially a Religious institution, presided upon by the Church.
The primary instinct of all life forms is to procreate. One cannot apply morals to instincts.
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493738 wrote: Then get your own.
Regards
DL
You're the one making the claim, now prove it or every "fact" you produce henceforth with be discounted.
Regards
DL
You're the one making the claim, now prove it or every "fact" you produce henceforth with be discounted.
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
FourPart;1493740 wrote: There are all sorts of reasons for people to be Single Parents. "Deadbeat" parenting is only one of them. There is also the result of unforeseen divorce - often worse for the child for the parents to remain married "for the sake of the children". Then, of course, there is the case of parents becoming Widowed.
Also, aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Marriage was initially a Religious institution, presided upon by the Church.
The primary instinct of all life forms is to procreate. One cannot apply morals to instincts.
I agree that there are various reasons for single parent homes.
My focus is not so much divorce as it is for those who never get married. That is only the tip of the iceberg if this research is good and I think it is. It is the same link I put above but I put it here in case you missed it.
True that we cannot apply morals to instincts but running from your parental duties and responsibilities, to my way of thinking, is going against our instincts that want us to insure that our offspring survive. That is why humans generally mate for life.
Regards
DL
Also, aren't you being a bit hypocritical? Marriage was initially a Religious institution, presided upon by the Church.
The primary instinct of all life forms is to procreate. One cannot apply morals to instincts.
I agree that there are various reasons for single parent homes.
My focus is not so much divorce as it is for those who never get married. That is only the tip of the iceberg if this research is good and I think it is. It is the same link I put above but I put it here in case you missed it.
True that we cannot apply morals to instincts but running from your parental duties and responsibilities, to my way of thinking, is going against our instincts that want us to insure that our offspring survive. That is why humans generally mate for life.
Regards
DL
-
Gnostic Christian Bishop
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:25 pm
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Bryn Mawr;1493741 wrote: You're the one making the claim, now prove it or every "fact" you produce henceforth with be discounted.
Then you had better put me on ignore as I produce one set of facts and am not here to cater to those too lazy to do their own research when they decide they do not like mine.
Those that lazy can go ask their mommies to wipe their ---- brow.
Regards
DL
Then you had better put me on ignore as I produce one set of facts and am not here to cater to those too lazy to do their own research when they decide they do not like mine.
Those that lazy can go ask their mommies to wipe their ---- brow.
Regards
DL
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493750 wrote:
True that we cannot apply morals to instincts but running from your parental duties and responsibilities, to my way of thinking, is going against our instincts that want us to insure that our offspring survive. That is why humans generally mate for life.
Regards
DL
That is one of the biggest fallacies of the galaxy.
A fairly small percentage of humans actually have a single mate for life.
True that we cannot apply morals to instincts but running from your parental duties and responsibilities, to my way of thinking, is going against our instincts that want us to insure that our offspring survive. That is why humans generally mate for life.
Regards
DL
That is one of the biggest fallacies of the galaxy.
A fairly small percentage of humans actually have a single mate for life.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
All costs of child rearing should be borne by men.
Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493751 wrote: Then you had better put me on ignore as I produce one set of facts and am not here to cater to those too lazy to do their own research when they decide they do not like mine.
Those that lazy can go ask their mommies to wipe their ---- brow.
Regards
DL
If you cannot back up your claim then it is meaningless - as to your childish little dig, it speaks volumes about you.
Those that lazy can go ask their mommies to wipe their ---- brow.
Regards
DL
If you cannot back up your claim then it is meaningless - as to your childish little dig, it speaks volumes about you.