Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Reason #965,281 to not bother with single moms...

Page 2 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Mercurial
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 537

15 Apr 2011, 12:35 pm

You know, instead being a raging misogynist and of acting like women are parasites, let's look at this another way: there are two boys involved here. This guy acted like their father in a number of ways. He willingly got involved with their life. He even got benefits from the government by listing them as dependents. In return, I'm sure the mother provided a lot for this guy--like sex, laundry, meals, someone he could call on when he needed any thing, like if he was sick or his car broke down, financial support via a second income, etc. etc. The usual stuff that comes from being in a relationship.

So you're saying a man can insert himself into the lives of two young boys, acting as their father, and reap all the benefits of being in a relationship with their mother, and then he can just walk away?

Who's the parasite in that equation? Why is it that a man has NO accountability in such a situation? Why is the woman the villain for making the man accountable? Do you have any grasp of what relationships are about? They are not things you just turn on and off. You're impacting another person's life, and when you are not accountable for yourself in that relationship, you can really hurt people--not just that person you're involved in, but whoever else is close to them and could be affected by the pain you caused your ex and any damage your departure brought to your ex's life.

You don't want to be accountable to other people? Fine. Then don't date. Anyone. Period. Ever. Not just single mothers--anyone. No one should have to deal with you. No one should be have to be burdened with the regret of wasting their time on you. No one deserves to put up with such selfish a-holery.



wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

15 Apr 2011, 12:36 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
wefunction wrote:

When you tell people where, what and when to post, that's being bossy. Own it. I suspect you're operating under the misapprehension that these exchanges mean something more to me than a time-killer.


Ok, fine, it's not like I am pointing a gun at you and force you when or where to post, I was just saying this is an off-topic and we have to discuss this elsewhere.

But fine...you're free....we are all born free, no?

What do you want to discuss here in this thread? The men's forum? Kit kat? Favorite chocolate? Zorg games? You can choose any subject!


I want to be able to make an off-handed comment without being told it's off-topic and then, subsequently, it BECOMES the topic of discussion as opposed to living and dying as an off-handed comment. The very thing you don't want to happen, you make happen by causing a fuss. If that's not what you want, you have full control over stopping it and it isn't even dependent on making me do what you want me to do. :wink:



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

15 Apr 2011, 12:48 pm

Quote:
ii) Mr. Zacharias was listed as father and filled the “father role” in the boys’ baptisms;


The man has legally adopted the boys, he's their father, and therefore he will be accountable as their father in case of divorce. Period.

I can't even get what's wrong in that case.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

15 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm

wefunction wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
wefunction wrote:

When you tell people where, what and when to post, that's being bossy. Own it. I suspect you're operating under the misapprehension that these exchanges mean something more to me than a time-killer.


Ok, fine, it's not like I am pointing a gun at you and force you when or where to post, I was just saying this is an off-topic and we have to discuss this elsewhere.

But fine...you're free....we are all born free, no?

What do you want to discuss here in this thread? The men's forum? Kit kat? Favorite chocolate? Zorg games? You can choose any subject!


I want to be able to make an off-handed comment without being told it's off-topic and then, subsequently, it BECOMES the topic of discussion as opposed to living and dying as an off-handed comment. The very thing you don't want to happen, you make happen by causing a fuss. If that's not what you want, you have full control over stopping it and it isn't even dependent on making me do what you want me to do. :wink:


Ok, whatever.

Moog, do you like her idea?



wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

15 Apr 2011, 1:01 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
wefunction wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
wefunction wrote:

When you tell people where, what and when to post, that's being bossy. Own it. I suspect you're operating under the misapprehension that these exchanges mean something more to me than a time-killer.


Ok, fine, it's not like I am pointing a gun at you and force you when or where to post, I was just saying this is an off-topic and we have to discuss this elsewhere.

But fine...you're free....we are all born free, no?

What do you want to discuss here in this thread? The men's forum? Kit kat? Favorite chocolate? Zorg games? You can choose any subject!


I want to be able to make an off-handed comment without being told it's off-topic and then, subsequently, it BECOMES the topic of discussion as opposed to living and dying as an off-handed comment. The very thing you don't want to happen, you make happen by causing a fuss. If that's not what you want, you have full control over stopping it and it isn't even dependent on making me do what you want me to do. :wink:


Ok, whatever.

Moog, do you like her idea?


You're not a moderator, Boo. :lol:



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

15 Apr 2011, 1:04 pm

Mercurial wrote:
You know, instead being a raging misogynist and of acting like women are parasites, let's look at this another way: there are two boys involved here. This guy acted like their father in a number of ways. He willingly got involved with their life. He even got benefits from the government by listing them as dependents. In return, I'm sure the mother provided a lot for this guy--like sex, laundry, meals, someone he could call on when he needed any thing, like if he was sick or his car broke down, financial support via a second income, etc. etc. The usual stuff that comes from being in a relationship.

So you're saying a man can insert himself into the lives of two young boys, acting as their father, and reap all the benefits of being in a relationship with their mother, and then he can just walk away?

Who's the parasite in that equation? Why is it that a man has NO accountability in such a situation? Why is the woman the villain for making the man accountable? Do you have any grasp of what relationships are about? They are not things you just turn on and off. You're impacting another person's life, and when you are not accountable for yourself in that relationship, you can really hurt people--not just that person you're involved in, but whoever else is close to them and could be affected by the pain you caused your ex and any damage your departure brought to your ex's life.

You don't want to be accountable to other people? Fine. Then don't date. Anyone. Period. Ever. Not just single mothers--anyone. No one should have to deal with you. No one should be have to be burdened with the regret of wasting their time on you. No one deserves to put up with such selfish a-holery.
agree, on all points.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

15 Apr 2011, 1:06 pm

wefunction wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
wefunction wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
wefunction wrote:

When you tell people where, what and when to post, that's being bossy. Own it. I suspect you're operating under the misapprehension that these exchanges mean something more to me than a time-killer.


Ok, fine, it's not like I am pointing a gun at you and force you when or where to post, I was just saying this is an off-topic and we have to discuss this elsewhere.

But fine...you're free....we are all born free, no?

What do you want to discuss here in this thread? The men's forum? Kit kat? Favorite chocolate? Zorg games? You can choose any subject!


I want to be able to make an off-handed comment without being told it's off-topic and then, subsequently, it BECOMES the topic of discussion as opposed to living and dying as an off-handed comment. The very thing you don't want to happen, you make happen by causing a fuss. If that's not what you want, you have full control over stopping it and it isn't even dependent on making me do what you want me to do. :wink:


Ok, whatever.

Moog, do you like her idea?


You're not a moderator, Boo. :lol:


Only moderators can address to our cute Moog?

Damn, those rules are getting weirder.



Daemonic-Jackal
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 581
Location: Salford, United Kingdom

15 Apr 2011, 1:10 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Eh, that won't happen in every case. It doesn't even happen in most cases.

It seems wrong on the surface, but I have to wonder if it's still wrong if he's the only father the kid has ever known. Meaning, he basically raised the kid.

Biological connections are not the be-all-end-all to family bonds.

It's okay, though. A single mom wouldn't want anyone that's not dedicated to being a father figure to her children.


So let's flip this around for a second then. What if a woman was with a single-father, and she was the only 'mother' that the child had ever known. Would she be expected to pay child support or does she have a get out clause because she isn't the child's biological mother and didn't give birth to them?

I'm not having a go, just pointing out the obvious double standard here.

If someone has legally adopted a child then fair enough they should have to pay support because they have taken on legal guardianship of a minor.

Just because a man is dating or married to a woman who's had a child from a previous relationship (or vice-versa) that does not make them the child's legal guardian, see the difference here?

Also if someone is only picking partners based on whether they'll be a good 'parental figure' or not, then they are choosing them for the wrong reason. It's not fair on their partner, themselves or the child/children in question either.


_________________
"Every cripple has his own way of walking. " ? Brendan Behan

http://www.facebook.com/YentonianCarlos


wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

15 Apr 2011, 1:10 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Only moderators can address to our cute Moog?

Damn, those rules are getting weirder.


That's not what I meant. :P Now I've got to go do something in the real world. Enjoy a wefunction-free WP for a while.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

15 Apr 2011, 1:13 pm

wefunction wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Only moderators can address to our cute Moog?

Damn, those rules are getting weirder.


That's not what I meant. :P Now I've got to go do something in the real world. Enjoy a wefunction-free WP for a while.


yay!!



wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

15 Apr 2011, 1:17 pm

Daemonic-Jackal wrote:
So let's flip this around for a second then. What if a woman was with a single-father, and she was the only 'mother' that the child had ever known. Would she be expected to pay child support or does she have a get out clause because she isn't the child's biological mother and didn't give birth to them?


My mother had children from a previous marriage and her ex-husband had sole custody of them. When I asked her if she ever paid child support (like my dad had done for his other children), she looked at me like I had horns growing out of my head. The thought of having pay child support was so appalling to her! I think you're right that there's a double standard and my mother's situation is a prime example of it. However, that double standard exists in the social arena, not in the legal one. Family Court is becoming more equalized at the moment, at times leaning on the side of paternity rights when it really is not appropriate for the children... but it is legitimate by the dictate of the law. I think you'll find that double standard in a different way than you've described. I think you'd see the court react the same way it did in this case but then the public outcry against it would be much greater.

Now Boo has a wefunction-free WP for a while. :wink:



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

15 Apr 2011, 1:23 pm

wefunction wrote:
Daemonic-Jackal wrote:
So let's flip this around for a second then. What if a woman was with a single-father, and she was the only 'mother' that the child had ever known. Would she be expected to pay child support or does she have a get out clause because she isn't the child's biological mother and didn't give birth to them?


My mother had children from a previous marriage and her ex-husband had sole custody of them. When I asked her if she ever paid child support (like my dad had done for his other children), she looked at me like I had horns growing out of my head. The thought of having pay child support was so appalling to her! I think you're right that there's a double standard and my mother's situation is a prime example of it. However, that double standard exists in the social arena, not in the legal one. Family Court is becoming more equalized at the moment, at times leaning on the side of paternity rights when it really is not appropriate for the children... but it is legitimate by the dictate of the law. I think you'll find that double standard in a different way than you've described. I think you'd see the court react the same way it did in this case but then the public outcry against it would be much greater.

Now Boo has a wefunction-free WP for a while. :wink:

in canada women pay child support just like men - depends on the custody arrangements and income of each parent.



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

15 Apr 2011, 1:34 pm

Daemonic-Jackal wrote:
So let's flip this around for a second then. What if a woman was with a single-father, and she was the only 'mother' that the child had ever known. Would she be expected to pay child support or does she have a get out clause because she isn't the child's biological mother and didn't give birth to them?


Um, in my state, yes, she would.

These support arrangements are made for the benefit of the child, regardless of the sex of the parent. If the mother had been the breadwinner and split from the father, then yes, she would be expected to pay him child support.

Edited to add: Looks like hyperlexian beat me to it! It works that way in the States, too, like it does in Canada. I'm sure it varies from state to state, but my state is very progressive.



Daemonic-Jackal
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 581
Location: Salford, United Kingdom

15 Apr 2011, 1:51 pm

mv wrote:
Daemonic-Jackal wrote:
So let's flip this around for a second then. What if a woman was with a single-father, and she was the only 'mother' that the child had ever known. Would she be expected to pay child support or does she have a get out clause because she isn't the child's biological mother and didn't give birth to them?


Um, in my state, yes, she would.

These support arrangements are made for the benefit of the child, regardless of the sex of the parent. If the mother had been the breadwinner and split from the father, then yes, she would be expected to pay him child support.


Well I don't agree with that either, if someone is not a child's biological parent they shouldn't have to pay child support after splitting from the child's mother/father (whichever it is) unless as I have previously stated they have legally adopted the child themselves.

It should be both of the biological parents supporting the child, not the 'parental figure' substitutes.


_________________
"Every cripple has his own way of walking. " ? Brendan Behan

http://www.facebook.com/YentonianCarlos


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

15 Apr 2011, 1:58 pm

Daemonic-Jackal wrote:
mv wrote:
Daemonic-Jackal wrote:
So let's flip this around for a second then. What if a woman was with a single-father, and she was the only 'mother' that the child had ever known. Would she be expected to pay child support or does she have a get out clause because she isn't the child's biological mother and didn't give birth to them?


Um, in my state, yes, she would.

These support arrangements are made for the benefit of the child, regardless of the sex of the parent. If the mother had been the breadwinner and split from the father, then yes, she would be expected to pay him child support.


Well I don't agree with that either, if someone is not a child's biological parent they shouldn't have to pay child support after splitting from the child's mother/father (whichever it is) unless as I have previously stated they have legally adopted the child themselves.

It should be both of the biological parents supporting the child, not the 'parental figure' substitutes.


That's a very black and white view of the issue.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

15 Apr 2011, 3:37 pm

mv wrote:
Looks like hyperlexian beat me to it!


Dang! I must've gone invisible again.