Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: wife (was number of cameras)

Subject: [OM] Re: wife (was number of cameras)
From: Chris Crawford <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:52:32 -0400
That's right, John. A man isn't a part of the family, he's just an ATM
machine to provide money for his child's mother. He has almost no right to
see or interact with his child. Single fathers and divorced fathers are
allowed by law to see their children only one evening a week and every other
weekend unless the mother is generous and allows more. You cannot be a
father with so little interaction with your kids. The man, however is
obliged to pay 'child support' payments to the mother, and if he doesn't, or
can't, he can be jailed. Women are not punished for refusing to let the
fathers see their children, even in violation of the on-day,
every-other-weekend requirement. If a single mother is poor and cannot
afford to support her children, she is given 'welfare': cheap or free
housing, food stamps, cash payments from the government. If a single father
is poor and cannot afford to support his kids, he is a criminal and is
thrown in prison. (that goes into another whole issue: it is against the law
for a man to be poor in the US, not just because of the child support issue,
yet half the jobs here pay $8 an hour or less).

All of the foregoing applies to all fathers who are not married to the
child's mother, whether through divorce, or because they just never married.
Divorced men suffer additionally in that the woman is allowed to take at
least half, and often more, of his assets and the man is often required to
financially support her for the rest of her life in some states via
'alimony' payments. (not Indiana, thankfully). Marriage brings men no
advantages in this country.



-- 
Chris Crawford
Photography & Graphic Design
Fort Wayne, Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My portfolio

http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My latest work!

http://www.plumpatrin.com  Something the world NEEDS.



On 6/27/08 10:45 AM, "John Hudson" <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> Is that to mean that the man, who is presumably the father in most families,
> is not considered part of the family?
> 
> If not part of the family, of what is he assumed to be a part?
> 
> jh
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Crawford" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:10 PM
> Subject: [OM] Re: wife (was number of cameras)
> 
> 



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz