Freepers are supposed to be about personal responsibility. Objecting to men paying child support does not strike me as an example thereof.
I feel sorry for the children in your circles.
We ARE about personal responsibility. But child support is mostly about giving women unaccounted-for money, not supporting children. The slut that married my brother took his money and built a house where the slut shacked up with its first cousin. Now the kids are grown and slut still owns the house. How did the slut's ability to build a house for itself and for its first cousin help the kids? Now that the kids are grown, why wouldn't my brother be entitled to partial ownership of the house, considering that any use HIS children have had of it is done, but the slut still owns the house? How does building luxury housing for sluts equate to responsibility for one's children?
You also stated that most folks you know who are divorced with kids have shared custody - two weeks here, two weeks there. Okay, great. Why do ANY of the women get ANY child support, if the men are taking care of their children half the time?
And why isn't shared PHYSICAL custody the default, rather than nearly 90% of women getting physical custody? Could it be these women don't want to let go of that child support check?
And how is sending a check once a month MORE of taking responsibility by a man for his children than seeking physical custody of his children (which many, many, many more than 10% of men actually do)? A man is MORE responsible to send a check than to keep his children in his home, feed them, clothe them, get them to school, make sure the homework gets done, etc.?
You have so many hidden premises, beg so many questions.
Oh, by the way - some women DO have to pay child support. About one woman is thusly sentenced for about every nine men. But men more reliably pay child support than deadbeat moms. Why are so many women unwilling to take responsibility for their children?
The system is inherently corrupt, and that corruption is tilted badly to favor women. With no-fault divorce, the initiator needs no serious reason to end the marriage. If the initiator is the wife, she can reasonably expect physical custody and significant child support, which is, essentially, free money for her to spend as she wishes.
Why should a man be held "responsible" for a situation he didn't create, and may have fought hard to prevent? Why do we give someone the right to unilaterally end a serious contract without cause? Why is the victim usually forced to pay for the outcome?
You talk about men taking responsibility for their children. How is it "responsible" for women to obtain divorces without cause and destroy the lives of their husbands and children? Does responsibility flow in only one direction? Is it not IRresponsible when one spouse unilaterally violates the marriage contract without cause, causing harm to all, and then foists the cost of the damages onto the innocent spouse?
Where divorce is truly necessary (and I've known a few circumstances where it really was), let the harmed party sue for divorce with cause. And prove in court, at least by the civil suit standard of a preponderance of the evidence that there are serious reasons for the action. Then, issues regarding money can be hashed out.
But nearly all divorces are no-fault, and about two-thirds of them are initiated by women who are little more than thieves out to steal from their soon-to-be ex-husbands. In these cases, let the initiating spouse go free, but without the loot he/she tries to wrest from his/her innocent spouse.
Without reforms of no-fault divorce laws, marriage is an extreme liability for men.
sitetest