Dear Jen,
With all due respect, the running joke behind "Joint Custody" is that too
often, the MOTHERS end up with TOTAL custody whilst the FATHERS end up in
the "joint", that is, incarcerated.
This is why increasing numbers of men want all custody or none of it. This
is also why more and more men are straying from having sex, not just because
of STD's but because they KNOW the mothers will deny their children the
right to be co-reared by them.
Why, then, should unmarried men, especially, even want to have sex? Worse
yet, married men have to bear the butt end of all of this whilst their wives
must deal with telling their children the real reasons why their daddies
didn't come home. If there is marital strife, the man always has to head
for the hills. If the woman kills him in a fight, all she needs to do is
claim "self-defense", and ain't a jury gonna convict her.
In case you haven't noticed, John and I are heterosexual men who loved our
wives, and had enough of their garbage. I wound up divorcing an immature
twit who falsely accused me of threatening her life, and who left me twice.
I am not entirely sure of John's case.
Nonetheless, the guy almost invariably ends up being jailed as the ABUSER,
when more and more often the WOMAN instigates/causes the real ABUSE. With
children of single mother homes 4 times more likely to end up in poverty and
(I believe) 28 times more likely to die at the hands of the custodial
parent, how does the dad figure into all of this anyway, especially since 9
times out of 10 he has a reasonable alibi for not abusing his kids in the
first place?
In 1996, only about 26-28 children were killed by their fathers NATIONWIDE.
Yet if the woman and man share custody, and she abuses the child, how often
is she caught performing the abusive acts, and how often is she given the
same court sentence that the man receives?
So much for "joint" custody. The woman gets the child custody, the man gets
put into custody by the "joint".
Sincerely,
Richard C. August
"Jen Larson" <straycat at udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3D3C4A2F.A791E17B at udel.edu...
>>> John Knight wrote:
> >
> > "Jen Larson" <straycat at udel.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3D3AC1CD.A00CDD37 at udel.edu...>> > > Good, this should give women incentive to improve themselves and quit
> > > thinking that they are entitled to a man's money because she will only
> > > .uck him and no other men.
>> > Then you don't mind if men keep their hard earned money, and leave women
to
> > earn theirs on their own, with NO welfare, NO AFDC, NO social security
paid
> > for exclusively with men's dollars, NO medicare (ditto), NO "tax
credits"
> > like EITC which exceeds the total contribution of women to the IRS by
$98
> > billion, NO "child support", and not one single dollar ever earned by a
man?
>> > That's what we've been waiting to hear!
>> I'm fine with all of that John. As long as men are held to 50/50 joint
> physical custody of children I am _TOTALLY_ cool with _ALL_ of the
> above!
