Longfellows - the latest bar craze
Gee, yah, what every city in Cambodia needs is a gay bar where the men customers beat the crap out of the women customers for taking their "bitch."
Not really Playboy..... however it can't be denied that western law does favour the woman when it comes to things like child custody, for example. I read a statistic that of seperating couples, only 5% of fathers contest custody and of those, 5% of them win. When I seperated from my ex, I was faced with a simple choice - contest custody and probably lose and be faced with a legal bill of £0000s thus disenabling me to support my children financially as I wanted to and always did, or give in without the court case and be able to support them. Her income was less than mine, but not insignificant, so she qualified for legal aid, thus empowering her use of a £125/hour lawyer who simply informed her of all her rights and none of her responsibilities (as they do), knowing full well that an angry person may be more concerned with lashing out than making sensible long-term decisions about their children's welfare. No discussion of a joint-parenting agreement would be entered into by her legal team, not even one with her as the main carer. She wanted, and got, complete control of every aspect of the children's lives.Playboy wrote:So pretty much the same as your GGC-Clans standard vent about ‘Money grabbing, evil, selfish, FWC blah blah blah then…logos wrote:Boring, repetitive, delusional and pontifical crap.
The implications of this were not completely clear to me until one day I drove 100 miles to surprise the kids and take them out of school for a treat lunch at their favourite cafe in town. The school denied this as I was not a custodian.
So what's a man to do? Start another long term relationship with kids that will impact his relationship with the first ones?...sit in at weekends at the fire like a pussycat?... or downgrade the standard myth of the happy family and start looking for alternatives? (sigh)
Rakit...........if the picture is of one of your alternatives.....go for it! Great shot ! (Camera shot, that is)
no that's the ex-wife when she got the payoff...Oosik wrote:Rakit...........if the picture is of one of your alternatives.....go for it! Great shot ! (Camera shot, that is)
-
- I have Cheap Mobile Internet
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:25 am
No. I didn’t even say all the men who go see female strip shows are gay. The point was it is sad that this makes it all around the world. Of all things. I was acknowledging how lame and cliché the whole concept of Hooters was. I was being cynical and then deduced that the attendees would be as well. Given that I know people who’ve gone there and don’t fit that description (from what I‘ve heard, they actually have good hot wings), it isn’t something I’d hold outside of being facetious.I guess that means that all the women who go to see male strip shows are lesbians then?
Nothing. I’ll be middle aged one day (hopefully). I actually like playing football (not watching it though). But I do find it bemusing that when stuff like this is applied to women, especially in the west (and they‘re serious), it doesn’t get this sort of scrutiny. I mean you can go on and on and on about women here and nobody says a thing. But even jokingly say something about a man and its suddenly a thing.By the way, what is wrong with:
1. Middle age?
2. Football?
Ha! Hypocrite.Female chauvinism at its worst.
Boring, repetitive, delusional and pontifical crap.
In the west, the mothers still are the primary caregivers of children. Even when both work full time. I think it makes more sense the child stays with the person whom is their primary care-giver and it is good that judges agree. Even if, in some cases, it is the father. Because of this, in the United States most cases are settled outside of court with the mother having the child most of the time.Not really Playboy..... however it can't be denied that western law does favour the woman when it comes to things like child custody, for example.
On the contrary, in fact, in courts the focus is on the mother’s behavior and she is held to a higher standard. Have you ever heard of the Gender Bias Report? The California Judicial Council findings? Judges will often say a mother reporting verbal abuse/physical abuse of the father is more detrimental to the child than the actual abuse. Apparently, “it showed [that] her hatred for the father took precedence over the children's need to hold a high image of their father." Often she’ll be accused of being “hysterical” for such things… and that will be what “drove” him to incest (Caplin, Chesler). The judges will also see the person with the most as the better caregiver at times. Being that female-dominated jobs are paid less and many times a woman will work less - or not at all - because she provides primary care for the children, guess who wins then? After a divorce, a woman’s sexual activity is questioned: if she is seeing another man or has seen other men, then clearly the child isn’t in a stable environment and the mother is reckless (ie. “SLUT!”). But also, if she has no man at all then she is chastised for “not providing a stable, heterosexual relationship”. Men will often win points for even trying to get custody or contesting existing custody because they are seen as “really caring” about their children (mothers don’t get the same credit) … even when they may only be doing it because they don’t want to pay child support. Women have been denied custody because they have paying jobs (which means they don’t care enough of their child) and when they don’t (which means they don’t care enough about their child).
Findings from the October 1991 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Policy paper by Meyer and Garasky, "The number of custodial fathers has been dramatically increasing over time, so to hold to a belief that fathers only gain custody when the mother is unfit requires one to claim that mothers are becoming more and more unfit over time. Fathers are more likely to get physical custody when their income is high, when the mother's income is low, and when the youngest child is older. Father custody is more likely in more recent divorces."
I don’t know where that statistic came from (do you hang around Masculist and Men‘s Rights Activism sights by any chance?), but I’m not surprised that only 5% contest; probably because they’re smart enough to realize that the mother has been taking more care of the child and there shouldn’t be such a change. This is about what is best for the child, not so father has all the cake. Most men see that.I read a statistic that of seperating couples, only 5% of fathers contest custody and of those, 5% of them win.
Speaking of which, Woman Ordered To Allow Her Children To Visit Their Father In Jail. The Kicker: Dad Raped Mom, Which Is Why He Is In Jail http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pb ... CAT=News01
That’s sad, but it was your choice not to go through with it. Most women do and in fact after a divorce end up poorer than they were and the man richer. Statistically, that is what happens. I do know men often get a raw deal with this (and maybe you did, I don’t know both sides) … but you can find a woman who did for each one. Then you have the guys that take off on her and owe child support. Hell, my cousin Kelly was just diagnosed with breast cancer; her ex-husband like never shows up, except when he wants to, to see Taylor and Carson. If God forbid something happens to her or if he comes back wanting custody and all this money from my dead Uncle Steve’s fund, she’ll be seen as “unable or unwilling” to provide for the children even though the social ills and money problems faced by single mothers are often because of the dad’s absence that contributes. But suddenly he may want to be super dad and will look like he really cares.When I seperated from my ex, I was faced with a simple choice - contest custody and probably lose and be faced with a legal bill of £0000s thus disenabling me to support my children financially as I wanted to and always did, or give in without the court case and be able to support them. Her income was less than mine, but not insignificant, so she qualified for legal aid, thus empowering her use of a £125/hour lawyer who simply informed her of all her rights and none of her responsibilities (as they do), knowing full well that an angry person may be more concerned with lashing out than making sensible long-term decisions about their children's welfare. No discussion of a joint-parenting agreement would be entered into by her legal team, not even one with her as the main carer. She wanted, and got, complete control of every aspect of the children's lives.
They say joint-custody doesn’t help the child and even my father didn’t want my sister and I to be going back and forth all the time. What ended up happening when I was 8 was that my dad got me in the summer time and on the weekends (my ma always said we could see him whenever we want and he could come over whenever he wants, so he’d also visit on his way to Bible Study), though.
Wow. Glad my parents never gave up on me.The implications of this were not completely clear to me until one day I drove 100 miles to surprise the kids and take them out of school for a treat lunch at their favourite cafe in town. The school denied this as I was not a custodian.
So what's a man to do? Start another long term relationship with kids that will impact his relationship with the first ones?...sit in at weekends at the fire like a pussycat?... or downgrade the standard myth of the happy family and start looking for alternatives? (sigh)
Remember that when you face someone with free, unlimited legal advice, they can afford to run and run at zero financial risk and their lawyers may encourage them to do so. So yeah, the choice was very simple: go through with it without legal aid unless at very high cost, lose and pay maybe £10k for the priviledge (much more if I took my own legal advice) then be left unable to support the kids financially for a while (investigating the facts and making a robust case would have meant a degree of character assassination of my ex and she isn't that bad as a mother, despite my not agreeing that she should have 100% control over the children's schooling and health issues, deciding to up and leave the country with the kids, disallowing me casual access, such as the school visit, for example)... or... not contest it and be able to support the kids financially.Nirvana wrote: That’s sad, but it was your choice not to go through with it.
Tough choice. I chose to support the kids and play the long game, which has paid off.
Of course they end up poorer if the man earned the highest income. But why should a few years contract, even without kids, cause a person to lose 50% of his (or her) possessions? It's daylight robbery, whether the female or the male is the perpetrator.Most women do and in fact after a divorce end up poorer than they were and the man richer.
Unjustified comment. I didn't give up on the kids one iota. Just on the idea that having kids with someone meant that, for better or worse, a degree of humanity would apply in terms of natural parental interaction.Nirvana wrote:Wow. Glad my parents never gave up on me.Rakit wrote:So what's a man to do? Start another long term relationship with kids that will impact his relationship with the first ones?...sit in at weekends at the fire like a pussycat?... or downgrade the standard myth of the happy family and start looking for alternatives? (sigh)
BTW, I got most of my facts from this site: Shared Parenting - a very useful site for any of you fathers out there who feel you may be getting a raw deal.
Anyway, time for a commercial break.... these are the Killing Fields child beggars. They are real hasslers for cash. My buddy gave me the solution. We paid the biggest kid (back left) $1 to keep them away from us whilst we saw what there is to see, then bought them all a cold drink when we were leaving. One of the best $5 I ever spent, anywhere, anytime. The kids were transformed from hardened little streetwise urchins into real kids again. Look at their faces; if only it were possible sustain that so easily. Ah well, another debate I guess.
Despite being happy to get a drink, one of the kids immediately reverted to bleating beggar again as soon as we walked off. Who can guess which one? Hint : look at the facial expressions, body language and group dynamics.
Last edited by Rakit on Sat May 13, 2006 1:35 am, edited 3 times in total.
Me too, but then I'm biased and kinda caught with the emotion in it. Just wish I'd had my decent kit with me - the pocket job doesn't cut the ice in harsh sunlight - filters were badly needed. Nevertheless, one of my all time favourites and easy to repeat another time.logos wrote:Rakit, hats off.
That is one of the best pics of Cambodia I have ever seen, regardless of the themes.
I see what you mean, just not how its specific to women. Which was what you implied is true.Remember that when you face someone with free, unlimited legal advice, they can afford to run and run at zero financial risk and their lawyers may encourage them to do so.
I’m not aware of the break down of it all. Just that, even if she ends up with the children, she ends up poorer and that shouldn‘t happen; it should be about the child(ren). Though I do like how you include “or her” because especially now, when women are in positions where they earn more money or the man stays home with the kids, she can be ordered to pay spousal support after a divorce. When it comes to child support, I don’t see why that should be an issue (for a man or woman, and yes, women do pay child support); unlike the razorblade-in-candy-apple myth of single parents (especially mothers) living luxuriously off of child support (yeah, right).Of course they end up poorer if the man earned the highest income. But why should a few years contract, even without kids, cause a person to lose 50% of his (or her) possessions? It's daylight robbery, whether the female or the male is the perpetrator.
Though I admit I was also partly addressing the myth that seems to be perpetuated here sometimes that men in western countries always lose all their money after divorces and the woman is flying high. That just isn’t true.
In fairness, your “humanity” wasn’t showing through too well when you flippantly went from your kids to a picture of that young woman. Like “PROBLEM SOLVED!”. I’m sure if she saw this, she’d get the same feeling I had. The impression you gave with that didn’t reflect too well and anybody would react. I think you know that and perhaps didn’t mean to give the wrong impression but was rather trying to play to a crowd a bit and that is why you now have the picture of the other children, which is a better reflection of how you actually feel.Unjustified comment. I didn't give up on the kids one iota. Just on the idea that having kids with someone meant that, for better or worse, a degree of humanity would apply in terms of natural parental interaction.
BTW, I got most of my facts from this site: Shared Parenting - a very useful site for any of you fathers out there who feel you may be getting a raw deal.
I have to say that I do find it suspicious that first they argue input from both parents are important (indeed!) … but then cite one of their sources for another argument as something that argues mothers aren’t important to children.
They talk about Parental Alienation Syndrome which was deemed “junk science” by Dr. Paul J. Fink, a past president of the American Psychiatric Association and president of the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media as is it unfounded, un-reviewed and unrecognized. But because of how it is used now in court (especially by fathers who believe their kids were “poisoned” or don‘t want to pay child support) by attorneys who can use pseudo-science in an argument, lawyers often urge parents (especially mothers) not to bring up instances of abuse against the children. It must also be noted that the man who coined the term held until the day he committed suicide in May of 2003 that the woman whom he deemed a “parental alienator” and that she lied about her ex-husband’s abuse was responsible for her ex subsequently shooting her dead due to how she made him “psychotic”. He had never provided any research to back it up, all his books were self-published, and the research he got his idea of it from was that children take sides often when parents get divorced … but neglected to include the fact that as they mature, they resolve it.
Anywhoo, here are arguments against presumptive joint-custody (which is what many are fighting for now)- http://members.aol.com/asherah/jointcustody.html
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Where is the latest location to advertise of software developer now?
by CKKwan » Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:32 am » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 1 Replies
- 951 Views
-
Last post by tuk-tukfish
Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:40 am
-
-
-
The latest knickers-in-a -twist thing- BOOKS!
by Bong Burgundy » Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:21 am » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 7 Replies
- 1951 Views
-
Last post by Guest
Sat Aug 29, 2020 9:58 am
-