Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Columbia Study for your reviews...

I finally found this study, it took a while since it was posted all the way back in 2005...I guess time flies when you're blogging.

Anyway, I love the spin they put on it: men are deciding to have fewer children due to higher child support...like men are the ones who make these decisions. It reminds me of the joke about how men change a light bulb: they just stand there and wait for the world to turn around them and twist the bulb in...self-centered...

Well we finally have a study linking child support enforcement to a lowering of single mother birth rates.

“Researchers at the University of Washington and Columbia University said Friday that child support laws' power to reduce single parenthood is an unintended consequence of a policy designed to help children and cut public welfare costs.”

Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."

The really GOOD NEWS is that this clearly demonstrates that women do NOT have children to get child support; as the states that collect the MOST child support have demonstrated a 20% DROP in single motherhood. So if women were having kids to collect support you would see just the opposite happen with a 20% increase in single mothers to match the child support collected.

So another urban myth shot down.

This could be more BAD NEWS for those who hate mothers and like to spread lies about us.

AND MORE BAD NEWS:

Additional research will now be required to ascertain if actual population NUMBERS in any particular community are being impacted OR if this study's results just means more mothers getting married now, so no drop in overall population for any community has occurred. Although somehow I suspect this drop in numbers of single mothers is mainly translating into lower population within the African-American community.

AND one must always suspect any public policy where this is the ultimate outcome.

Thus the search for truth continues.



Study Ties State Laws, Unwed Child Births

By REBECCA COOK, Associated Press Writer

Sat Jun 18, 2005, 1:52 PM ET SEATTLE - Tough child support laws may dissuade men from becoming unwed fathers, as states with the most stringent laws and strict enforcement have up to 20 percent fewer out-of-wedlock births, a new study shows.

Researchers at the University of Washington and Columbia University said Friday that child support laws' power to reduce single parenthood is an unintended consequence of a policy designed to help children and cut public welfare costs.

"Often the unintended effects are bad, so it's refreshing to see that," said lead study author Robert Plotnick, a University of Washington professor of public affairs. "Women living in states that do a better job of enforcing child support are less likely to become an unwed mother."

The percentage of unmarried births in the United States has increased from 10 percent in the 1960s to about a third of all births today. Because children of single parents run a higher risk of poverty, academic failure and other problems, lawmakers are always seeking policies that will discourage unwed births — usually focusing on the mothers.

Researchers said their study recognizes the father's responsibility. "Decisions about sexual intercourse and marriage involve two people," said study co-author Irwin Garfinkel, a Columbia University professor and one of the nation's top experts on child support. The study, which has not yet been published, looked at a nationwide sample of 5,195 women of childbearing age using data from 1980-1993.

It didn't show whether tougher child support laws prevented pregnancies or encouraged marriage. Plotnick said the data limited the researchers to observing a strong correlation between tough child support enforcement and fewer out-of-wedlock births. Whether that's caused by fewer unmarried people getting pregnant or more couples marrying when the woman is expecting, he could not say. But he said the findings warrant further study.

"It's been very hard to find conventional programs that reduce unwed childbearing that work," Plotnick said Friday. "If you found a program cutting nonmarried births by 20 percent, you'd be happy."

Researchers noted wide disparities in child support policies. For example, in 2002 — the most recent year for which data were available — only one state, New Jersey, collected at least 80 percent of owed child support.

According to Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, 31 states collected 41 percent to 60 percent of child support orders. The District of Columbia collected less than 20 percent of all child support owed.

49 comments:

PolishKnight said...

Hello NYMOM,

Well, it seems like you're trying to have it both ways again: When a social policy that holds men more responsible reduces the number of unwed births, you argue that the women should get the credit. However, when a social policy that rewards women for having taxpayer funded births results in more crime you refuse to blame the women.

The statistic of how much CS is collected is misleading since "child" support orders are disconnected from the actual cost of raising a child but rather based upon how much the parents' earn and how many children total the NCP has and are not adjusted downward automatically if the NCP goes to jail (hence, the reason why DC men owe so much support: I read a statistic that about half of the men were, or have been, in prison.)

The good news is that SOMEONE is responding to the FINANCIAL disincentives provided by the state.

NYMOM said...

Well one problem is society attempts to blame women everytime something goes wrong (no matter how powerless she is)...men only appear to want to take credit when good things happen, but like to blame women when bad things happen ie., crimes goes up (crimes mainly committed by men of course) so you blame women for having the babies who grow up to commit the crimes...

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, if society really worked the way you said then there would be no welfare in the first place along with massive "child" support ordered paid by men towards women. We simply wouldn't have a discussion about such things if women were held accountable rather than men by society.

At best, what we have now are WHISPERS. Whispers, by the way, by women themselves as well as men. Politicians and mainstream media and public, you'll be happy to know, still blame men for their crimes not only individually by throwing them in jail, but also collectively by police and courtroom sentencing and arrest discounts for women. 80 to 90% of custody decisions going in favor women isn't all that bad for women as much as you seem to claim.

Come on now, we're adults. Do you really believe this claim? That men are blaming women "everytime"? Or is this a preemptive posture against MRA's?

NYMOM said...

It's not true any longer that 80% to 90% of custody decisions go in favor of women. When custody is litigated men frequently win.

Actually I read somewhere that all the growth in single parenthood was related to men receiving custody of children. I don't know how true it is if 40% of births are now to single mothers but I had read this factoid...

Your perception is based upon a time when few people litigated custody...now many do litigate and the figures are slowly but surely turning against mothers.

Anonymous said...

However custody decisions go on paper we at least know that around 85% of women have their kids with them the majority of the time. In 2000 for sure. Nobody litigated custody in 2000?

I don't see much of a crisis for women there.

Richard

NYMOM said...

The real 'crisis' started in the late 90s under Clinton's administration...it probably took a few years to manifest itself, so by 2000 it might not have been obvious what was happening yet. Now it is.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, I asked you (in another thread, or perhaps it got lost) to clarify what you mean by a crisis. Do you consider more men getting shared custody of their children a crisis? Also, I would appreciate it if you could clarify what you mean by "fake" shared custody and how you consider this bad. If the men only want "shared" custody to get out of child support, as you claimed, and really just leave the kids with the mother, then she is still the primary parent of the child. So how is that so awful if women are motivated by higher, noble causes to raise children rather than cash checks?

Regarding more litigation of custody. Much of it is due to more men seeking, and getting shared custody for more noble reasons but also much of it is due to greater financial stakes for both parents. With child-support liens often costing men close to their take home pay, it's worth it for them to litigate. So, in a way, the "tide" was turned towards women so much so, that men felt a need to wake up and challenge the system.

Quite simply, NYMOM, men cannot accept a status quo where women get kids and most of the money and the men become "slaves" or at least indentured servants with little rights.

NYMOM said...

I agree with you Polish Knight that something has to be done about the too high child support awards which Judges have been hitting the non-custodial parent with over the last ten years or so. Much of it is due to the state making 'add-ons' to child support like the cost of medical insurance and 50% or more of the cost of child care...

I consider it a crisis when so many mothers are involuntarily losing custody of their children...it's one thing if they come to a voluntary agreement with the father but that's not the case in many of these cases.

PolishKnight said...

As I said in another thread, NYMOM, perhaps the definition of a crisis should be on what happens to the children rather than the mother's feelings about losing ownership and control of her children?

Nowhere in your argument is the best interests of the children mentioned. Your PRIMARY concern is the "voluntary" desires of the mother.

It's a "crisis" when children are raised under financial duress and under taxpayer largesse or external support from someone who has been given little motivation other than altruism to pay up. Child-support and welfare are fundamentally beggar bowls.

Let me give you a personal example: during the Agnes flood of 1972, my parents sent me to live with relatives for two years while they rebuilt. Granted, it was "voluntary" but it was hardly something they planned or wanted. In theory, they could have gone on welfare and kept us around but which do you think would have been better for us? For my parents to live with us, on welfare in section 8 housing, or to have a reliable support system in place while they rebuilt (literally) their lives?

How do you KNOW that it's not in the best interests of many or even most of these children to live with their father in these cases? Do you care?

For the record, if things don't work out with my wife and it's in the best interests of the children to stay with her, and we can work out something reasonable, I'm ok with that. It's not a big deal. I regard children as people, not property.

Anonymous said...

PK said: "Nowhere in your argument is the best interests of the children mentioned. Your PRIMARY concern is the "voluntary" desires of the mother."

I'm guessing NY will posit that the best interests of the children usually coincide with the desires of the mother. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But of course we've already discussed at length at least two situations where mothers' desires and children's interests are worlds apart. One in the case of a low-conflict divorce, the other where poor women deliberately have children they can not afford.

That's not all, but it's a substantial start.

Richard

NYMOM said...

I do posit that 99.9% of the time a mother is the person most likely to act in her childrens' best interest...

There are some rare cases where this doesn't apply, but for the most part a mother is the best guardian for any children she bears...

It doesn't mean other people can't love the children and play a role in their lives, but a mother should always be 'first among equal' regarding her children.

NYMOM said...

"first among equals" is what I should have said...

NYMOM said...

AND it's not clear to me that divorce in low conflict marriages is not the correct choice especially with girls. It could make them emulate their mother's behavior and become a doormat later in life for some male idiot.

virago said...

"For the record, if things don't work out with my wife and it's in the best interests of the children to stay with her, and we can work out something reasonable, I'm ok with that. It's not a big deal. I regard children as people, not property."

What a bunch of crap! Your first and only interest would be to get out of paying all or most of your child support. You'd think of those kids as property fast enough if taking them away from their mother saves YOU some money, and it sure wouldn't have anything to do with "the best interests of the children". All your comments throughout this blog attest to that. The fact that your now trying to paint yourself as some noble, self-sacrificing father in the case of a divorce is laughable.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM claims: "I do posit that 99.9% of the time a mother is the person most likely to act in her childrens' best interest..."

Great, NYMOM. So if welfare and child-support was eliminated, it would only have a 0.1% impact on all children nationwide using that statistic.

It's amazing how you take men for granted not just in the subtle ways that they act as fathers and generic protectors and mentors, but the more obvious financial requirements that they are so essential for.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, note that low-conflict often swings both ways. Literally. I've heard lots of women say they believe that it's acceptable, even "cute" for women to hit men and to expect not to get hit back. These women treat their men as doormats.

But then again, in increasingly many cases I've noticed that these women remain unmarried and miserable that there's a shortage of "real men" who are willing to be punching bags and ATM machines.

One of the main purposes of marriage is for two people to pool their resources to better raise children and help each other. It's the single best way for poor people to raise their, and their children's, status in society. The welfare state is a lousy substitute and no matter how much you try to sweep it under the rug, the welfare state and child-support are necessary components to mothers' pseudo-independence. Bearing children into poverty doesn't pay the bills.

PolishKnight said...

Virago claims: "What a bunch of crap! Your first and only interest would be to get out of paying all or most of your child support. You'd think of those kids as property fast enough if taking them away from their mother saves YOU some money, and it sure wouldn't have anything to do with "the best interests of the children". All your comments throughout this blog attest to that. The fact that your now trying to paint yourself as some noble, self-sacrificing father in the case of a divorce is laughable."

You can say my language at this time is insincere, Virago, but at least I'm putting the words out there. So far, all you women have done here is accuse men of being cheap and out to save money while using a double standard for women praising them for getting children and the money at all costs. You are not even bothering to pretend to not have a double standard. It's out there for everyone to see.

And THAT is why society, including many women, may be slowly developing a negative attitude towards modern motherhood. Don't blame the messenger.

NYMOM said...

It's part of a total package Polish Knight. You can't ignore thousands of years of men hogging every resource for themselves on the planet and then turn around and claim women only use men for money.

Men have laid the groundwork for that...and now they are reaping what they have collectively sown.

PolishKnight said...

I'm reminded of the Biblical tale of Solomon when he has to determine the true mother of a child and he orders the child cut in half and split between them. The real mother offers to give up the child rather than see the child harmed. She puts the child's best interests ahead of her own.

It's been mostly men passing the Solomon test for years: Giving up not only their children, but their money as well. Perhaps the courts, and society, are beginning to see the wisdom of Solomon and recognizing who the real parent willing to take custody of children, without the money, is.

Funny thing: I caught the tail end of "Castle" last night and it was about a detective duo trying to decode a kidnapping. It turns out the mother kidnapped the child in order to try to fraudulently collect a ransom so she wouldn't lose custody and pay child-support to her stay-at-home husband. She shrieked that she wasn't going to be like a man paying support for a child and home she doesn't have anymore.

It's rather difficult for you ladies to portray women as saints when not only don't you live up to those standards, you expect only men to.

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM claims: "You can't ignore thousands of years of men hogging every resource for themselves on the planet[...]"

PK responds: Yeah, like the lifeboats on the Titanic. Or diamonds. Men never shared those with women. Or comfortable homes. Or nice clothing where women still button on the opposite side of men because of wealthy women having their servants do it for them.

NYMOM said...

You said it yourself: men work hard to make money to pay for their 'families' you probably should have inserted women in there and you would have been closer to the truth.

You guys invented the game, now you don't like it????

PolishKnight said...

Whether I like it or not isn't the point. I'm observing that men SHARE resources rather than hoard them.

It's hardly a "game" we invented, BTW. As Richard points out, the option of giving birth in the forest, breast feeding the young for 2 years, and then setting them loose and hoping 1/2 survive is no longer acceptable for humanity. Most children want silly things like a roof over their head, indoor plumbing, food besides berries from the forest, etc. and they need them for 18 years or more.

Men are the ultimate technology: like cars that people feel they can't live without, it's WOMEN who evolved men to be indispensible providers and protectors to the point that it's best that we run things. It's kind of like this computer. You don't manage all your letters by hand anymore, do you? Hell, if I could get my computer to figure out who to vote for, I'd let it have a go at it.

Your model for humanity (literally) is for men to be "committed" breadwinners and providers without rights since you define a higher humanity by the presence of a womb. As Richard says, that sounds a lot like slavery. Just replace "womb" with "white skin".

The fundamental problem with that paradigm, NYMOM, is that you need to rely upon the same white male patriarchal protector providers to impliment it.

Did you ever see I-Robot?

virago said...

"You can say my language at this time is insincere, Virago, but at least I'm putting the words out there. So far, all you women have done here is accuse men of being cheap and out to save money while using a double standard for women praising them for getting children and the money at all costs. You are not even bothering to pretend to not have a double standard. It's out there for everyone to see."

That's because THERE ISN'T A DOUBLE STANDARD. Women get custody because MEN DON'T WANT IT unless their some kind of financial motivation for them. That's it. Plain and simple.

PolishKnight said...

Even NYMOM agrees that plenty of men get custody because the mother doesn't want the kids or the father has legitimate concerns about her stability. I personally know a single father who raised his kids for a decade, without a dime of support, and even helped his ex-wife get her life back together. They remarried last spring.

The double standard, Virago, is you arguing that men are motivated by trying to save money by keeping their children while ignoring the fact that women often are getting money by keeping them. In order to prove your case, you'd have to have most custodial mothers give up their welfare and child-support to show their commitment. Oh, wait, we both know that will never happen. Snicker.

NYMOM said...

It will never happen because men don't want it to happen since it takes away the ONLY LEVERAGE you have over women...

Many rich and famous mothers lose custody. Brittany Spears certainly didn't need Kevin Federline to support her kids...

AND it's not legal to refuse child support, that legally belongs to the child, so a mother can't refuse it (not legally anyway) even if she wants to sign it away.

Men have worked the legal system (under the pretense of the best interest of the child) to trap women by holding their kids as hostages for their good behavior.

NYMOM said...

It's no double standard that Virago argues since it's women using a system created by men...where they can't even walk away from it...they could probably get charged with neglect for giving a kid a lower standard of living or something...

Actually I consider the growing number of abductions by mothers to be women walking away from the money...

virago said...

"The double standard, Virago, is you arguing that men are motivated by trying to save money by keeping their children while ignoring the fact that women often are getting money by keeping them."

And your ignoring the FACT that women are PRIMARILY responsible for the care of their children. As the PRIMARY CAREGIVER, women are usually the ones who have to take off of work for a sick kid, or take a kid to the pediatrician. Women are usually the ones who have to turn down higher paying promotions with longer hours because THEY HAVE FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES. Women are usually the ones who have to stick to lower paying flexible jobs that make it easier to take care of their kids. Women are usually the ones who end up giving up their jobs to stay home because the lack of AFFORDABLE QUALITY DAYCARE makes it harder to continue working. Do you think that children just bathe, dress, feed, and toilet train themselves, and take themselves to the doctor? I've got new for you: CHILDREN NEED CARE, AND THAT CARE IS USUALLY PROVIDED BY THEIR MOTHERS. Why do you think that men have a higher earning potential both before and after divorce? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PRIMARY CARE OF THEIR OWN CHILDREN. Women give up all or most of their earnings during a marriage to make sure the kids are well taken care of, AND they make it possible for MEN to continue EXPANDING his earning potential so that HE doesn't have to give up his OWN INCOME POTENTIAL. MOTHERS put the most time and effort raising their children during the marriage. They already have an ESTABLISHED TRACK RECORD of taking care of their children. MOTHERS have more than demonstrated DURING THE MARRIAGE that being in their custody post divorce is in their children's best interest. And any MONEY that a woman gets from her husband in a divorce is COMPENSATION for all the FINANCIAL SACRIFICES that SHE made DURING THE MARRIAGE by making sure that THEIR CHILDREN WERE WELL TAKEN CARE OF. And child support is something different all together. The average child support award doesn't even cover a third of the cost of raising a child. Child support is COMPENSATION for money that THE MOTHER has already spent IN RAISING THE CHILD. The CUSTODIAL PARENT always ends up spending more money just by having the kids in the same household. So, when I hear stupid men bitching about wanting custody to save themselves money I could just laugh because their only buying into some stupid myth put out there by the MRA/FRA crowd. And the poor kids end up suffering because dad spends thousand of dollars fighting for custody ONLY TO DUMP THE KIDS ON A GIRLFRIEND OR SECOND WIFE AS THEIR PRIMARY CAREGIVER WHEN THEY COULD'VE HAD THEIR OWN MOTHERS. sO, Polish Knight, the only double standard is BENEFIT THE MEN. Women sacrifice the most for their children financially both before and after the divorce, but it's the children who pay the ultimate price BECAUSE DAD IS A SELFISH JERK. That's it. In a nutshell. And that's all I'm going to discuss on this issue because it's been done to death all throughout this blog. The problem isn't me ignoring a double standard THAT DOESN'T EXIST. The problem is that you are again trying to PROJECT your FEELINGS on to me. It's gets old REAL FAST.

virago said...

"Actually I consider the growing number of abductions by mothers to be women walking away from the money..."

And is it any wonder? I had a friend who just recently gave birth after 22 hours of labor (via c-section), and 4 months of chronic morning sickness followed by 3 months of bedrest for high blood pressure. The babies recreational sperm donor shows up at the hospital (after ignoring the mother the entire time she was pregnant) demanding to be let in to see "his child" being born , and he had the nerve to ask my friend to let him have primary physical custody when the baby is ready to leave the hospital. The baby was premature with pneumonia so he was in the hospital for several weeks while my friend was there every day pumping breastmilk to feed him through a tube. But "dad" wants custody even though he barely saw the baby during that time. Now he's taking her to court. He even wants to force her to give the baby HIS LAST NAME because the baby is a boy, and he wants someone to carry on his family name. She has yet to go to court, but to throw this at her when she's under so much pain and stress from the labor and the condition of HER SON just shows what a worthless ass he is. My friend isn't running away (yet). but I sure wouldn't blame her if she did.

NYMOM said...

Yes and she's very lucky since if she was not ready for release from the hospital and the baby was, the recreational sperm donor could have taken him right from the hospital...then once he received the birth certificate (that takes a few weeks so it might slow him down a little) he could have filed for temporary custody for himself...she would have lost her child even before she got out of her hospital bed.

I've heard numerous story like this, numerous ones from mothers who this has happened to...actually once the birth certificate is in a recreational sperm donor's hands legally he can go down and file for temporary custody...very common ploy...

That's why I say young mothers havae to be extremely careful that some misfit doesn't kidnap their kid before they even leave the hospital.

I won't say it's common, but it happens often enough that mothers have to be aware of the possibility.

virago said...

"I've heard numerous story like this, numerous ones from mothers who this has happened to...actually once the birth certificate is in a recreational sperm donor's hands legally he can go down and file for temporary custody...very common ploy..."

Yeah, well my friend isn't totally clueless. She deliberately left the name of the father blank on the birth certificate so he has to have a court order to amend that, and that means a dna test. He's pissed off because he isn't disputing that he is the biological father. They both know he is, but it certainly bumped the court day to a later date pending the results (a good 6 weeks). This gives her time to find a good lawyer.

PolishKnight said...

Hahahaha! Good going Virago! Do hear that, NYMOM, Virago has agreed that the PRIMARY parent, as defined by her as the person spending the most time with the kid, should get custody and not the mother. She used a nice gender-neutral term that could apply, say, to an unemployed husband whose been at home dropping the kid off at daycare and warming up TV dinners while the career woman goes to work and has fun working 12 hours a day paying the bills. Welcome to the world of men, sweetheart! Teehee!

In addition, such a man would be entitled to compensation for his "sacrifice" for staying at home while she enjoyed the benefit of his "free" labor. Pay up honey! :-)

It's hilarious that when there are cases where the shoe is on the other foot, the women cry foul and "unfair!"

For the record, Virago, there is AFFORDABLE quality daycare available. You gals just have to pay for it. You sure do expect men to do so in the form of risking custody of their children or paying alimony. Yes? Oh, wait, but that would require her spending HER money on her children. Eeeek! Yep, it's amazing that when a woman is paying SOMEONE ELSE to look after her kids, she starts cutting corners. It amazes me, honestly, that there are millions of American women paying illegal immigrants, who have no ID and could run off to Mexico with their kids in a heartbeat, below market wages and then turn around and gripe that they deserve credit for a sacrifice. Wow!

In answer to your whine that women wind up giving up their lower paying careers to help the man earn mo' money, nothing stops them from marrying poorer guys and having him do all that work. Oh, wait, then she'd have to put up the money.

Women today who are able to get a gig that women in the 1950's took for granted: Marry up in income, quit her hobby job when it suits her, and run to the judge to rescue her from the oppression of doing what she wanted... are finding it harder to get men to agree or able to live up to this deal.

But don't worry! After Obama and McCain get done giving all the money away to rich white male bankers, I'm sure they'll have some left over to give for single women to have the state pay all the childcare bills. Tee hee. Good luck with that!

PolishKnight said...

Virago, you had claimed previously that my only reason for wanting custody of my children (and presumably most men's as well) was to get out of paying child-support.

Yet now you're claiming that a father is seeking custody when he isn't liable for any support?

The way you tell the tale, the guy sounds like a jerk but, of course, we just have one side of the story. One observation: Richard and I found good women. I had bad girlfriends in my life but I quickly identified them as such and moved on.

If you gals don't like bad boys, why do you keep having children for them? If you're equal and want them out of your lives, why do you so often demand the state track them down to keep them involved to pay "child" support?

Those questions are self-answering, aren't they?

No doubt you say a lot of bad things about me, especially considering how you disagree with my opinions, but one fact is indisputable: I would travel halfway around the world for the woman I love. You gals can barely drag yourselves to the local McBar. Being a good parent starts with the work in finding and choosing and getting along with the co-parent.

virago said...

Polish Knight:

As usual your talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about, and reading your comments is like Groundhog's Day when Bill Murray's character lived the same day over and over again. It's the same old shit over and over throughout this thread and the entire blog. Frankly, you bore me. It puzzles me why a middle aged man with no kids and no prospects for a decent relationship outside his wallet or a desperate woman from the Ukraine spends so much time on a blog for MOTHERS. After all, I can relate to this blog personally. It's like your so desperate for the attention of a woman-any woman (even an anonymous woman on the internet)- that your willing to make yourself look like a total ass just to convince me that your some kind of studmuffin (and you've spent a lot of time doing just that). It would almost be sad if it wasn't so creepy.

"No doubt you say a lot of bad things about me, especially considering how you disagree with my opinions, but one fact is indisputable: I would travel halfway around the world for the woman I love."

OH, bullshit! You couldn't make it in a relationship with any American woman because they wouldn't kiss your ass, and that forced you to seek out some desperate woman from the Ukraine where the men are so mysoganist, they even make you look good. And that's desperation right there.

"You gals can barely drag yourselves to the local McBar. Being a good parent starts with the work in finding and choosing and getting along with the co-parent."

And I guarantee that your not capable of geting along with anyone enough to "co-parent". You blame all of your relationship failures on American women instead of looking at what a poor example of a man you really are. You look at some woman from the Ukraine as YOUR ULTIMATE FANTASY, but in the end, she's going to see what kind of a turd you really are, and she's going to leave you. Your going to do anything possible to keep her with you even if it means threatening her with deportation and loss of custody of her kids. Hopefully, she walks out on you before you even have any. You can lie to your wife all you want, but your comments on this blog speak loud and clear about what your agenda really is and will be if she tries to divorce you. I really feel sorry for her. She's in a terrible situation, and sooner or later, she's going to find that out if she hasn't already. Your disgusting.

PolishKnight said...

Here's another great example of NYMOM saying that responding to these personal taunts from you would be a distraction. You say this is a forum about mothers, but you obsess over my personal life and how much it "bores" you. I hope that the following will be relevent:

The key point I made here is this: I, a middle aged man, went out and found my "fantasy" mate and I'm happy. Yet here you and your buddies are living here, where you claim the women are empowered to say no to jerks like me, yet you and your friends can't find a decent mate even in the prime years of your lives. Results speak louder than words, Kimberly/Virago.

Your last paragraph is a perfect example of projection: Rather than address the shortcomings in your personal life as a woman and ultimately mother, you instead just hope that my relationship fails in order to validate or cover up your own failures. You then accuse me of blaming American women for a failure that is now moot even as you do nothing but blame men and stew in your misery.

Is this the kind of behavior that makes for a great parent (mother or father?) And how do you think children react to a parent whose out for control and constantly worried about someone upstaging their self-important role as mommy dearest?

For me, becoming a parent is about a tremendous responsibility that terrifies me but also intrigues me as a challenge to be a better person and to develop a relationship with a person who will literally be a part of me and my wife. I find that exciting. The LAST thing I care about is getting a "Father of the year" award or playing power games. My wife has access to EVERYTHING. I trust her, completely. She's rather shocked by that. She says that from what she has heard from people here in the states about how the system treats men, that it wouldn't have surprised her if I asked for a prenup. But I know she's not only good hearted, but smart enough to know that it suits her, and her future children, to keep me around.

It wasn't an arrangement I offered to American women such as you. And your behavior here is a perfect reason why. Good luck at the sperm bank.

virago said...

"My wife has access to EVERYTHING. She's rather shocked by that."

She has YOU. She has nothing.

"Is this the kind of behavior that makes for a great parent (mother or father?) And how do you think children react to a parent whose out for control and constantly worried about someone upstaging their self-important role as mommy dearest?"

Well, let's see. I'll ask my 3 children. I kicked their father out and divorced him for acting like such an irresponsible jerk. I wasn't going to put up with a man who brought home a paycheck but liked to go out with the boys all the time and thought he should be able to buy a big screen TV (among other crap) when we had bills to pay and kids to feed. We lived apart for 18 months, and we reconciled a few years ago. I took him back, but I made it absolutely crystal clear that if he didn't shape up, I won't hesitate to kick his ass out again. We've lived together ever since, and our relationship is better than it was before the divorce. No, my kids don't have ANY complaints because it MY BEHAVIOR that changed the situation for the better. My kids have a much better life, and it wouldn't have happened if I didn't TAKE CONTROL. And earlier tonight, my kids were having a pillow fight with their dad before bed. NO, my kids don't have ANY complaints at all. And I don't either especially after the kids were sleeping, and their father and I had our own "pillow fight". So, yeah, Polish Knight, I'll gladly stew in my own "misery". BWwhhaaaaaaa!

"For me, becoming a parent is about a tremendous responsibility that terrifies me but also intrigues me as a challenge to be a better person and to develop a relationship with a person who will literally be a part of me and my wife."

And a part of all those hookers your going to have "initiate" your kid if you have a boy. Plus, your probably going to sit him down and tell him all about how all those evil women are going to mistreat him turning him into a mysoganist pig who can't have a decent relationship with a woman for fear he might be turned down for the loser he is rather than face up to his own shortcomings just like your old man did to you."

"She says that from what she has heard from people here in the states about how the system treats men, that it wouldn't have surprised her if I asked for a prenup. But I know she's not only good hearted, but smart enough to know that it suits her, and her future children, to keep me around."

OH, bullshit! The "people" who told her how bad men have it is YOU. Polish Knight whining," OH, honey, you make me feel like a REAL MAN because none of those American women could stand me! Wah! And in the meantime, I'll throw all this bling at you so that you stay with me while I take our future son to a prostitute-oh shit! I wasn't suppose to tell you that!-anyway, honey, I love you because your so desperate from all that poverty in the Ukraine to put up with me-I mean "traditional". Just don't develope any self-esteem like those American women because you probably won't want me! WAh!" LOL

"It wasn't an arrangement I offered to American women such as you."

OH, thank God! American women are safe at least until the Ukrainian chick dumps him!

" And your behavior here is a perfect reason why."

OMG, Polish Knight doesn't like my behavior! I'm so upset! Now I'll never catch such a fine specimen of masculinity like Polish Knight! Wah!

"Good luck at the sperm bank."

After 3 kids? Fuck no. Thanks, but no thanks.

PolishKnight said...

It's funny, Virago, that your story is similar to what my friend who lives in Philadelphia experienced: His wife, the MOTHER of the children, went out with her girlfriends and drank heavily and drove.

He started trying to lay down the law and she balked and when he even mentioned the D word (divorce), she pre-emptively struck with serving him with divorce papers. HOWEVER, since she had blown all of her own money drinking and he had prepared his own seperate accounts, she had to make a fair settlement (more than fair for her actually) and settle for joint custody. She got something like $50 a month in "child" support and now she's lost she's even that since he had to take a pay cut during the recession. (I have to check, this is recent. She will probably have to pay him support.)

She then cleaned up her act a little, cut back on the drinking, and realized that he wasn't so worthless after all when she had to pay thousands of dollars to fix windows on her home that previously were fixed by him for free. She offered to reconcile and he declined. He told me that the reason for declining the reconcilation was that she only appeared to repent when she realized she couldn't get away with gaming the system and he didn't trust her.

Later on, his eldest daughter was angry at him for getting divorced and he showed her the papers that proved that she served them on him. He says that made a major impact in her attitude.

For the record, I posted this story months ago here so I'm not making it up in retort to yours lest you think I might be so inclined.

And yes, in a way, you do sound miserable in that you don't seem to respect your husband. You talk about my wife being powerless yet you keep your husband on a very short leash, yes? Regarding me teaching sons to distrust "evil women" as you put it, you seem to be teaching any sons you have "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware". If they grow up to be strong and accomplished, that just means more stuff for the courts to take away to give to the woman, right? It's no wonder that so many men wind up as slackers. They're in damned if they do or don't situations!

Regarding bling: You freaked out over your husband getting a big screen TV, remember? I at least let my wife have bling. And her opinion about American women is based upon her own observations at work and how American women treat her. She sees the condensating attitude of these women towards her and her culture that she regards you as vulgar and ignorant. FYI, if you need advice on how to not appear frumpy and poorly dressed, she can give you tips on how to turn the heads of succesful men rather than gripe about big screen tv's...

Regarding your claims of being so happy to be safe from the likes of me... yeah, right. You want to protect such women, who are adults, from marrying the likes of me for their own protection. Yeah, right. Like US automakers wanted to "protect" Japanese autoworkers by getting tariffs against their cars for decades.

FYI: My wife loves our big screen TV and DVR. You don't know what you're missing!

virago said...

"FYI: My wife loves our big screen TV and DVR. You don't know what you're missing!"

Yeah, but she has to fuck YOU to get it! The thought makes me heave!
LOL.

PolishKnight said...

Not all women find the notion of having to have sex with their husband distasteful, Virago.

On the contrary, your emotionally and financially neutered husband is quite a catch. He doesn't dare raise his voice to you lest you give him the boot. I'm sure other women are jealous of a man like that.

FYI: It's not just the big screen TV's. It's also BBQ's in the park, flowers for all occasions, fixing up things around the house, and listening to her problems and exciting things that happened during her day. Some of those things I do because I want to, and some I do because I love her. But I don't do any of them because I'm afraid not to or because I HAVE to.

You wouldn't understand.

PolishKnight said...

Not all women find the notion of having to have sex with their husband distasteful, Virago.

On the contrary, your emotionally and financially neutered husband is quite a catch. He doesn't dare raise his voice to you lest you give him the boot. I'm sure other women are jealous of a man like that.

FYI: It's not just the big screen TV's. It's also BBQ's in the park, flowers for all occasions, fixing up things around the house, and listening to her problems and exciting things that happened during her day. Some of those things I do because I want to, and some I do because I love her. But I don't do any of them because I'm afraid not to or because I HAVE to.

You wouldn't understand.

virago said...

"You wouldn't understand"

Actually, Polish Knight, I do because my husband does those things all the time. And he does housework and helps take care of the kids. And most important, he CHANGED BEHAVIOR THAT WAS MOST DISRUPTIVE TO OUR MARRIAGE. Does that mean that I didn't? No, there were things about me that would've made me run the other way. The point is that we went to counseling-something he wouldn't even consider before the divorce. After 18 months of living apart, he agreed to go and it was the best thing ever. You might think he's a "financially neutered husband", but you also forget-I HAVE THREE KIDS. It does cost money to raise those kids, and a big screen TV wasn't going to come before them. I didn't neuter him. He grew up and realized that IT WASN'T ALL ABOUT HIM. Anyway, I'm sick of these insults. They're actually pretty childish on both our parts. Maybe I don't really have the right to assume ANYTHING about your relationship with your wife because I DON'T KNOW YOU. Actually, I hope that your marriage is as good as you say it is because divorce sucks for everyone, but I really hope that you treat your wife as good as you say you do, and aren't setting her up for some kind of emotional or physical abuse later on when you realize she's not some stereotyped traditional foreign woman like these mail order bride services like to hype up. Yes, I know. Match.com isn't exactly a mail order bride service, but your comments aren't much different from the ones those guys say in that article. That's why I can't help being suspicious. OTOH, I really don't know what goes on in your marriage. For all I know, your wife may have you as neutered as you say I have my husband. Maybe that's why your on this blog. So you can vent and say things about women that you don't dare say to your wife. Just kidding. Seriously, if you have kids, your going to find out exactly what I'm talking about. Kids cost money, and your bills are going to double. Anyway, I'm sick of shit. Good-bye and good luck with your wife. I have my doubts about your relationship, but I actually hope that I'm wrong.

PolishKnight said...

Virago, you had the kids but he had to pay for them. You like being in control and hey, I can appreciate that. I encountered lots of American women that liked to demand I pay for luxuries such as diamonds or fancy cars and it "being about them" but I wouldn't have had the option to kick them to the curb to teach them a lesson.

One of the things I'm most proud of about my relationship with my wife is how direct and honest we are with each other. It's a Slavic thing. My wife gives to me as good as she gets. We live a life that's free of the materialistic rat-race expectations most Americans live by. We have a small apartment that's served us well and our future plans include staying there. (We discussed getting a bigger place but she felt that since she wants the baby with her everywhere she goes anyway, why bother getting a seperate room for the first year?)

We regularly shop at Ross and Marshalls and even good will and find lots of bargains. She was shocked when she heard of some people spending $500 for a pram. In addition, we don't plan to blow tons of money on overrated American universities. We can send our children overseas for a fraction of the cost and have them come back better mannered as a bonus. (Nearly every university student in Eastern Europe knows how to play a musical instrument, paint, etc.)

For me, going back to my Slavic roots wasn't about finding a wife initially. Unlike the men in the article, as I said, I learned Polish and the customs. I have friends in 5 different countries I have visited. By traveling, I'm not a fish in water not knowing what drives me but rather have options most native Americans lack.

Thanks for your kind sentiments. 'night.

virago said...

"Thanks for your kind sentiments. 'night"

Your welcome! Have a nice day!

NYMOM said...

Well thank god that's over...

NYMOM said...

Just to let everyone know I'm having a few problems (again) accessing the blog regularly since I 'upgraded' my computer and telephone and now I presumably can go online through my phone. Unfortunately the screen is so small that I can hardly see it and now I've gotten rid of my verizon account for this wireless phone...

Anyway I'm working on figuring out a way (w/o paying too much) to get back online via my computer again...so the struggle with technology continues...

NYMOM said...

Just to let everyone know I'm locked into a two-year contract so any suggestions can include the option of getting rid of my cell and going back to my old phone/computer service.

NYMOM said...

I meant CAN'T INCLUDE

marry said...

Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!
_____________________________

Students Resource

Anonymous said...

Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing this post plus the rest of the website is really good.
Feel free to surf my webpage ... Tampa Family Lawyer

Anonymous said...

I do not even understand how I finished up here, but I thought this submit used to be
good. I don't recognise who you're but definitely you're going to a well-known blogger should you aren't already. Cheers!
Also see my site: Tampa child custody attorney