Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA reddit

Men’s Rightsers discover the true villain behind the police killing of Walter Scott: His ex-wife

A makeshift memorial at the spot where Walter Scott was killed
A makeshift memorial at the spot where Walter Scott was killed

Over on men’s rights hate site A Voice for Men, Attila Vinczer has found the true villain in the case of Walter Scott, the black man shot in the back after he ran from a white cop: Don’t blame the cop for shooting and killing a man who was no danger to him whatsoever; blame the ex-wife who simply wanted Scott to pay the child support he owed:

Attila_L_Vinczer Mod • 10 hours ago This is another chilling example of the systemic severe abuse of fathers, by mothers. I say mothers, because the system only engages in the otherwise illegal act of debtor's prison, against fathers, result from the mother seeking it to do so.  I wondered why this man ran from the police. He did not appear to be a criminal. His crime, was of being a poor father, who was murdered in cold blood in fear of being sent back to debtor's prison, again. That is why he ended up shot, in the back, after the mother of his child(ren) stabbed him in the back.  Another father dead. Now, there is zero chance of collecting child support. I hold the mother responsible for robbing her child(ren) of their father and causing this father's death.

Another AVFM commenter seconded Vinczer’s, er, interpretation of events.

Jeff • 21 minutes ago The woman who set the child support order on him is just as responsible for his death as the police officer is. She sent out agents of the state to threaten him with violence, to kidnap him multiple times, and he ended up getting murdered as a result. His blood is on her hands just as much as it's on the cop's hands.

As did someone called TLC:

TLC • 8 hours ago Child support criminalizes fathers.  Walter Scott owed child support, therefore he was a criminal.  If he had been a mother, the government would have helped him support his children.  But because he was a father, he was a criminal.  And criminals deserve to die.  The cop who shot Walter Scott may have been a racist.  But Scott didn't die just because he was black.  He died because he was a father.

Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the regulars, to their credit, were a bit more reluctant to see this as a Men’s Rights issue rather than a “white cop shooting black man despite being in no danger at all” issue. Well, some of them were, in any case. The others posted comments like this:

Ransom_Stoddard 2 points 23 hours ago*  This is a men's rights issue, because men should have 50% equal access and physical and legal custody of their children without child support wealth redistribution that is rationalized by unequal custody orders - by default of law unless one parent is proven to be a clear and present danger to their children- without needing to pay tens-to-hundreds of thousands of dollars just for the privilege of seeing their children that men must pay if the mother refuses to let their Fathers see their children. If there was actual equality, this man would not have ran, because there would have been no existing warrant for failure to appear in Court nor failure to pay child support. This man was murdered because of a lack of reproductive and parental equality.

Dungone decided to spread the blame to evil feminists eager to cash in on sweet, sweet child support payments.

dungone 1 point 6 hours ago*  Feminists: "We didn't make that cop shoot him, we just want our baby momma mana."

InBaggingArea offered the most succinct explanation:

InBaggingArea 9 points 1 day ago  Violence against men because of matriarchy.

It’s true that Scott owed child support. He had four children with two ex-wives and apparently owed thousands of dollars in child support for his two younger children; his family says this is the likely reason he ran, though we can’t be sure. Despite being behind on his payments, he was reportedly on good terms with his children, and saw them regularly.

Scott’s funeral was held today.

H/T — r/againstmensrights

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

195 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Catalpa
Catalpa
5 years ago

So how about we just take each other’s statements in good faith, but also with a grain of salt?

Yeah, as kirbywarp said, that’s what the mammotheers have been doing while asking you for citations. Protip, bud. If someone says: “Huh. I’ve not come across that kind of thinking before. Would you mind showing me more sources of information about your claims?”, they are taking your claims in good faith. They’re believing that you actually HAVE sources of information to share. You’re for some reason acting like they’re saying “AHAHAH YOU BIG FAT LIAR SHOW ME CITATIONS SO I CAN PISS ALL OVER YOUR CLAIMS”.

I believe what you meant to say was “How about everyone reads what I say and goes ‘hm, I never thought of that but you make a good and logical point, kind sir. I bow to your superior knowledge.’?”

Also, dude, saying that you did tons of research on the topic before and that you’re now an expert and should be trusted implicitly doesn’t mean shit on the internet. Anyone can claim anything on the internet. For example, I happen to be the Queen of Alaska, and know more about the polar bears than anyone else. Did you know that they actually lay eggs to protect their cubs from the harsh polar climate? They’re like platypuses in that way. Now, if anyone wants to refute my claims, you all better go out and google this shit yourself, because I’m very busy being queen and can bearly find the time to type out messages in the comments section of a blog, let alone go to google as well.

Bill Price
5 years ago

Also, I don’t think Bill know what “with a grain of salt” means. I don’t know how I missed that.

It means to be skeptical, Bill, which Kirby and many others have demonstrated. It’s the opposite of taking things in good faith. That contradiction is kinda appropriate considering you said you’ve made citations but I reread your posts and there were no citations, just you stating facts.

-Banana

I don’t think healthy skepticism and good faith are mutually exclusive. You need both to avoid the extremes of gullibility and distrust.

You also state European standards are better even though there’s a bunch of different countries in Europe all with their own child support laws. Which of the dozens of European standards are better than USA’s? The UK one where the average pay is £200 a week (or 1,192 USD a month), the German system where the the custodial parent can stay home with the kid and have the noncustodial pay for the entire child support until school age, or maybe the Swedish system in which you incur interest if they are behind in payments which typically last until the child is 21?

The nordic standards are the ones I prefer as a model. Anglo countries tend to fall on the hard on fathers side of the spectrum, with the US being the most extreme among them in that regard.

As an example, Sweden requires parents to come to an agreement on child support, which terminates at 18 (not 21), and it also has the second highest rate of collection of child support after Denmark [ibid]. Furthermore, at the end of the linked document, it can be seen that US child support as percentage of net income went up from 1994-2004, while it decreased in every other country, coming out to only about 10% of disposable income in the Nordic countries (about half what it is in the US).

Furthermore, Nordic countries do not enforce child support with imprisonment, and they have made it policy that it is in the best interests of the family and society that men spend time with their children rather than pay hefty child support (“fathers should not be socially excluded from families because of high child support payments”).

There’s much more out there, and I’d recommend you do some research into the matter, too, if this is a subject that interests you. The American family law regime is a disaster that benefits lawyers and the wealthy at the expense of most families caught up in it. We could do much, much better, but people seem to be unwilling to abandon what they have come to know for whatever reason (my guess would be lobbying by professional groups like the AAML).

Bill Price
5 years ago

Oh, and what do you know, an article from a source most readers here would trust:

So what could be done to better ensure single mothers get the money they need to help them raise their children while reforming a system that penalizes poor fathers who can’t pay?

The best model is likely to be found in Europe. As of 2010, all European countries except the Netherlands guaranteed child support payments to custodial parents even if the noncustodial parent couldn’t pay or could only pay part. Sweden goes even further and has a guaranteed assistance program in which all custodial parents get a child support payment from the government no matter what, and the government then collects what it can from the noncustodial ones. Such a system seems to work — 95 percent of these parents get child support payments. This system “gets you a guaranteed minimum benefit whatever the nonresident father can pay,” explained Irwin Garfinkel, a professor of social work at Columbia University.

He thinks this model could significantly improve the system if the United States were to take the same tactic. “From the perspective of the children, I would say that’s the single most important thing that could be done,” Garfinkel said.

Any such reform, however, would also have to be paired with changes to how we calculate what noncustodial parents owe. American fathers have the highest obligations among 14 of the richest countries, even if they are poor or unemployed (in eight countries, an unemployed father doesn’t owe anything). The U.S. is one of four that doesn’t exempt some portion of the noncustodial parent’s income for basic living expenses. Only five countries are so extreme as to jail fathers who don’t pay.

Garfinkel proposes making sure the obligation is always a percentage of the noncustodial parent’s income. “That would protect the fathers,” he said. “If you express the obligations as a percent of income, it would automatically reduce the amount of harassment possible.” If a father has no income coming in, then he wouldn’t be obligated to pay and wouldn’t keep racking up debts as many do now. Mothers would also benefit in the long run, given that even a poor father’s income is likely to eventually increase down the road.

Believe me now?

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Well, I don’t believe all your claims, but…

Thank you for finally coughing up the links so we can actually read what you’ve been trying to talk about. I’ll be doing a bit of reading, I see.

I still don’t get how you jumped the shark from child support is expensive to “A police officer shooting a fleeing ‘suspect’ in the back is okay and probs not racially motivated”

Honestly, I think the bigger problem isn’t why he ran, but why shooting him was the response.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

So, what you’re saying is that the US should have a more robust welfare state? Feminists don’t actually argue against that. Seriously. I don’t know any feminist who would argue against the notion of the state stepping in if the father was legitimately unable to pay support. The key word here though, is unable. Not unwilling.

But again, that doesn’t mean the system oppressed fathers. Single mothers get treated like shit too. Many states, particularly those under Republican control make you jump through hoops to get assistance. Remember Florida drug testing welfare recipients. How about the recent Kansas legislation that would regulate SNAP benefits to a ridiculous degree?

Here’s an article on the hell low income parents (often single mothers) go through to get subsidized daycare. The federal government only provides enough to cover 1 out of 6 children who qualify so it’s up to the whims of the states – many whom must balance their budget because the state constitution requires it – to make up the rest. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/parents-miss-work-lose-jobs-trying-to-get-child-care-subsidy/2013/05/15/3031ac2c-ba59-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html.

Meanwhile, the countries you hold up as better for non custodial parents have heavily subsidized child care. http://blog.oup.com/2012/11/subsidized-day-care-domeij-klein/

So basically, the countries that are good for non custodial parents are better than the US and the UK for all parents across the board.

This is why using Nordic countries as an argument for why the American child support is bad for fathers specifically is flawed. The US is terrible for low income people in general. What you have not done is demonstrated that fathers have it worse than mothers in the US. Remember, Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen” is apocryphal.

You’re arguing against a point nobody made. None of us want to see fathers who are trying in good faith to pay their support jailed. None of us would be opposed to better social safety nets that would ease burdens on parents. What we object to is the notion that fathers have it worse than mothers. If you think single moms are living high on the hog on free welfare and generous child support payments, you clearly haven’t met very many single mothers. The point we’re making is that the system punishes and even creates poverty.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Sorry my citations aren’t as top notch as they could be. Aging phones and pdfs don’t mix.

Bill Price
5 years ago

I still don’t get how you jumped the shark from child support is expensive to “A police officer shooting a fleeing ‘suspect’ in the back is okay and probs not racially motivated”

Huh? I think you mixed me up with someone else.

Honestly, I think the bigger problem isn’t why he ran, but why shooting him was the response.

Both are problems, IMO.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

What we object to is the notion that fathers have it worse than mothers.

And the notion that feminism is particularly to blame for the situation. And the notion that the situation is gender-motivated, and the barriers to the solution are put up by gender-based discussions. And the notion that the problem of child support would be solved simply by mandating that NCPs spend time with the kids instead of money and nothing else. And the notion that every single not-good situation in the context of child support is equivalent to the worst-case scenario.

Bill Price
5 years ago

So, what you’re saying is that the US should have a more robust welfare state? Feminists don’t actually argue against that. Seriously. I don’t know any feminist who would argue against the notion of the state stepping in if the father was legitimately unable to pay support. The key word here though, is unable. Not unwilling.

But again, that doesn’t mean the system oppressed fathers. Single mothers get treated like shit too. Many states, particularly those under Republican control make you jump through hoops to get assistance. Remember Florida drug testing welfare recipients. How about the recent Kansas legislation that would regulate SNAP benefits to a ridiculous degree?

Technically, fathers who are unable to pay support are not supposed to be jailed. But they are anyway, because they are denied representation in court and cannot properly make the case for inability to pay, even though it’s obvious and the proceedings are a farce.

I don’t think the system is fair to either poor mothers or fathers, but the truly heavy hand of law enforcement/incarceration falls on fathers disproportionately. Obviously, in a better world there would be more cooperative childrearing and therefore less need for child support of any amount. But the current system is essentially a spoils system that discourages that by decreeing an obligor and obligee, thereby disincentivizing time spent with kids by non-custodial parent. This in my opinion is the crucial difference between Nordic and US family law policy. If Walter Scott could have taken care of his kids while unemployed (by providing daycare, picking them up from school, etc.) I think it would have been better for their mother than having him in jail racking up debt.

Only 20 hours of childcare per week is worth more than even a middle-class child support award given daycare costs. Poor or unemployed fathers could save both mothers and the state money if they performed regular, meaningful childcare. Why not give them the incentive and opportunity to do so?

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

Contra, I think you might be confusing Bill with Saturday, who commented earlier in the thread? I looked through Bill’s posts and I don’t think he said that, though it’s possible I missed it.

Thank you for the links, Bill 🙂

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

If childcare costs more than the child support payment, that’s not a bad solution. But it would require higher and longer lasting unemployment benefits and more generous SNAP benefits. I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but a lot of conservative and moderate voters and legislators certainly would. Once again, we’re back to the point that the system sucks for low income people in general.

Seriously, nobody here is arguing that jail is always the best solution. I tend to think it should be reserved for violent crime myself. But the high incarceration rates in the US have nothing to do with misandry or feminism and everything to do with the private prison industry being a huge industry with a lot of lobbying power. Many states have contracts with them that force the state to pay huge fines if not enough cells are filled. The papers please anti immigration bill in AZ was Co written by the prison industry. It’s a combination of political corruption with racism and classism.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Also, if the “politicized feminism” you hate so much ruled the country, birth control and abortion would be accessible and free or cheap and sex ed would not be abstinence only. There would be many fewer single mothers and child support owing fathers in the first place.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@Price:

But the current system is essentially a spoils system that discourages that by decreeing an obligor and obligee, thereby disincentivizing time spent with kids by non-custodial parent.

Every child support system decrees an obligor and obligee. That’s what the existence of child support inherently means. If you’re talking about wanting to take into account time spent with the child as a method of decreasing the amount, sure! That’d make sense. But your framing is just so dang wonky.

Technically, fathers who are unable to pay support are not supposed to be jailed. But they are anyway, because they are denied representation in court and cannot properly make the case for inability to pay, even though it’s obvious and the proceedings are a farce.

You keep repeating this type of thing; that fathers are being hauled off to prison all over the place for being unable to keep up with the unfair burden placed on them. And to be clear, when this does happen, it’s wrong. Any system that decreases unfair jail time would be wonderful. But again, your framing is wonky. How do you mesh your narrative of practically every NCP in arrears being thrown in prison with these stats?

An estimated 59 percent of custodial parents who fail to receive any child support already have a support order in place for their children. According to authorities, this means that the non-custodial parent has been ordered to pay but has failed to comply without punishment.

Unpaid child support, including arrears, totaled $100 billion in 2011.
Of the 12.5 million cases in which a custodial parent is legally owed support, 75 percent involve a noncustodial parent who can afford to make the payments but refuse to do so. Research indicates that the majority of noncustodial parents with child support warrants are not detained by law enforcement officials until they commit another offense.

Child support warrants are intended to rectify situations where non-payment is an ongoing issue. However, these warrants are notorious for the poor enforcement associated with them. Compared to other warrants issued by the courts, warrants pertaining to non-payment of child support do not receive the level of serious attention they are due, leaving many families to suffer financial hardship, according to authorities.

An estimated 2.6 million outstanding warrants for both misdemeanor and felony offenses have burdened the US Judicial System to such a degree that child support warrants receive an unfortunately low priority from the system, authorities state. This provides a certain impunity for nonpaying parents, even with a warrant issued for their arrest.

The system in more liberal countries does indeed appear to be better, with money actually reaching the children even when the NCP can’t/won’t pay. I do like the idea of the trade-off between child support through money or through time (mainly because it is a trade-off, flexible in the face of situations where joint-custody isn’t possible). But seriously, Price, your arguments would be much more convincing, and your solutions would be more pertinent, if you argued from reality rather than from rhetoric.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

But the high incarceration rates in the US have nothing to do with misandry or feminism and everything to do with the private prison industry being a huge industry with a lot of lobbying power. Many states have contracts with them that force the state to pay huge fines if not enough cells are filled. The papers please anti immigration bill in AZ was Co written by the prison industry. It’s a combination of political corruption with racism and classism.

Plus, the US tends to think of any criminal as a Criminal with a capital C, a monster unrepentant and unchangeable. There’s a general drive in our society to just lock people up and throw away the key as the first step rather than the last. I’d hazard a guess that the private prison industry appeared mainly because of our infatuation with the idea of prison in the first place.

There was a story of a prison out in Sweden where the guards forgot to lock the cells one night, leaving all the inmates to roam free for 12 hours. And what did these fiends do with their sudden release?

Bake cake.

Yup.

The culture of prison in the US is abysmal, with far too much focus on isolation and punishment and not nearly enough on rehabilitation. But anyone who tries to push for reform is considered to be weak on crime; the public’s impression is that every criminal is Charles Manson and rehabilitation would be useless and too soft.

None of this is caused by feminism. In fact, feminists are one of the groups that push for reform, ending the war on drugs, and a bunch of other similar stuff.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Also, having unemployed fathers provide child care as an alternative solution is fine, but won’t work in all cases. In many cases, women leave the father of their children because he’s an abuser. There are also fathers who simply don’t want to spend time with their kids. So, this solution should be on the table but not required. Making kids spend time with an abusive or neglectful parent is not a great solution either. Of course, in an evil feminist utopia men would be taught to view women as human so this problem would lessen.

The anecdote I have about why enforced childcare on the part of the noncustodial parent is actually gender flipped. My cousin and her husband have full custody of his daughter. Her mother is a meth addict who is also involved with dealing. She was recently arrested in a huge bust. I don’t know this woman personally, but from what I know about her, she wouldn’t be the best care provider. Luckily my uncle and his wife have pitched in with child care even though she’s not a blood relative, my family treats her as one of our own. She’s healthy, safe and a good student and the best way to keep it that way is to keep the status quo. Visitation only.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@weirwoodtreehugger:

Also, having unemployed fathers provide child care as an alternative solution is fine, but won’t work in all cases. In many cases, women leave the father of their children because he’s an abuser. There are also fathers who simply don’t want to spend time with their kids.

Ironically, with all of Price’s lamentations on gender narratives getting in the way of discussion, his own gender bias of thinking of the NCPs only as men who want to be (and are safe being) involved in their children’s lives but can’t meet the undue burden placed on them by wicked mothers and a corrupt legal system blinds him to why his proposed solution of mandating joint-care just can’t work.

Not to mention that if you know a little bit of Price’s background his whole “revelation” seems extremely selfishly motivated.

Bill Price
5 years ago

Also, having unemployed fathers provide child care as an alternative solution is fine, but won’t work in all cases. In many cases, women leave the father of their children because he’s an abuser. There are also fathers who simply don’t want to spend time with their kids. So, this solution should be on the table but not required. Making kids spend time with an abusive or neglectful parent is not a great solution either. Of course, in an evil feminist utopia men would be taught to view women as human so this problem would lessen.

-weirwoodtreehugger

Sure, but that’s a minority of cases. Was Walter Scott that kind of guy? Are most poor non-custodial parents dangerous to their children?

If someone has a serious drug problem or is a violent criminal (child abusers are violent criminals by definition), or mentally ill (most truly neglectful parents have mental problems), then they shouldn’t be taking care of a kid. But what percentage of people qualify as such? 5-10% perhaps. For most fathers, this simply isn’t an issue. For the few for whom it is, then there would obviously need to be different arrangements.

And think of the motivation unemployed guys would suddenly find when they ended up doing daycare while their kids’ mother works. I bet a lot of them would find jobs in a hurry. Don’t get me wrong – I love my kids – but taking care of them all day every day is harder than your typical job.

And yes, I agree that it should be on the table as an option, but not required. If the non-custodial parent really doesn’t want to take care of the kids, then he/she can pay the support.

But finally, we have to take into account the people who can’t pay or take care of the kids for whatever reason. Some of these people are pretty seriously damaged and need help, like your cousin’s daughter’s mother. Taking a hard line on them doesn’t usually work, but often simply exacerbates the problem. What I don’t get is why our culture doesn’t show compassion toward parents with problems, and instead totally separates their well-being from their children’s. My dad had serious problems in life, and even though I didn’t live with him it was hard on me when something bad happened to him. For example, he got tossed in jail over a dispute with management at his workplace that escalated to a fight (he was a Teamster shop steward), lost his job and then his life just started to go downhill and I watched the slow-motion train wreck for the rest of his life. I can say from experience that it’s really hard on a kid when your dad’s in jail. Do the people going after poor fathers realize this? Do they think they’re doing the kids any favors, or (as I suspect), do they simply not care?

Bill Price
5 years ago

@isidore13

You’re welcome. 🙂

I don’t really mind citing stuff — I just don’t always have the time (it’s in short supply when a baby’s around). But I got up really early this morning, so I figured might as well spend fifteen minutes or so looking for good sources.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

@Bill

Huh? I think you mixed me up with someone else.

::reviews thread::

Whoops, I was. You did not imply what I said you did, at all, and I was conflating you with a different person.

I apologize for sticking some truly terrible words in your mouth and ascribing motivations to your posts that were unwarranted by your words. It was undeserved and uncalled for.

I would have apologized sooner, but I just got back to the thread.

Also, thanks for the links.

I still think a lot of what you are saying, particularly the idea of the adversarial nature of feminists and their intent to punish men that your earlier posts strongly implied are not quite as valid as you might think.

However, we have some common ground.

I’m in total agreement that we do need to consider how the current system affects poorer parents, and that (in the case where the non-custodial parent is NOT abusive or dangerous to either the child or the custodial parent) encouraging parental involvement.

I’m just not quite convinced your proposed model would actually accomplish what you think it will, or that you’ve thought about all the potential complications.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

*there should not be a ‘that’ before the parenthesis. It’s only a little before noon and it’s already been a long day…

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

If someone has a serious drug problem or is a violent criminal (child abusers are violent criminals by definition), or mentally ill (most truly neglectful parents have mental problems), then they shouldn’t be taking care of a kid.

I’m just going to throw this out there: Can we not equate being mentally ill with being a terrible parent? The two can mix, but they’re pretty mutually exclusive.

There are plenty of parents out there with depression, anxiety, or some other form of mental illness that still manage to parent their children just fine. There are people out there who have mental illnesses who are terrible parents, yes, but there are so many that manage.

Yeah, there are shitty parents out there who are mentally ill, and their mental illness might get in the way of them doing better, but that’s not their fault, any more than it’s the fault of a terminal cancer patient that they can’t be the best parent possible for their children. We can’t help the illnesses we have.

To say that people who are “mentally ill” (which is a very vague statement given that we know more about mental illness now than we did even five years ago) are unfit parents is a really shitty thing to do, and it kind of smacks of “People like you shouldn’t breed!” ideology.

Bill Price
5 years ago

I still think a lot of what you are saying, particularly the idea of the adversarial nature of feminists and their intent to punish men that your earlier posts strongly implied are not quite as valid as you might think.

-contrapangloss

Just to make my views clear, I don’t ascribe an adversarial outlook only to feminists. I think it pervades our society, and most of us are guilty of it to some extent if we ascribe to contemporary cultural norms. That’s really the “revelation” I had recently. Feminism is only one out of many schools of thought that are part of the same trend.

However, we have some common ground.

That’s good to hear! Common ground is what we need.

I’m in total agreement that we do need to consider how the current system affects poorer parents, and that (in the case where the non-custodial parent is NOT abusive or dangerous to either the child or the custodial parent) encouraging parental involvement.

I’m just not quite convinced your proposed model would actually accomplish what you think it will, or that you’ve thought about all the potential complications.

I can’t predict the future, but I can say that the present situation is so far from ideal that we should not only look for different solutions, but implement them as well. I also think that mitigating conflict and defusing the adversarial mindset will lower the overall rate of abuse substantially. When people see that their interests coincide with their partners’ and children’s interests they will be a lot less inclined to be antagonistic toward them.

Of course there are always complications and unintended consequences, but that’s what we’re dealing with in the Walter Scott case, and many more like it. Was the Bradley Amendment intended to criminalize poverty and put decent men such as Mr. Scott (described as a gentle, soft-spoken man) in desperate straits? Probably not, but that’s what happened.

I think the current system, which is the result of unprecedented legislation from the late 80s/early 90s, carries the greater burden of unintended consequences. Merely repealing some of the more extreme aspects of the law would be enough to eliminate a great deal of these consequences, but I favor a comprehensive overhaul.

*there should not be a ‘that’ before the parenthesis. It’s only a little before noon and it’s already been a long day…

Ah, I see you’re a westerner like me. 🙂

Maybe we can make it happen here first. Build a better society that is more just for men and women, mother, father and child alike. That’s my new mission. Took me a few years of wandering in the wilderness to see the light.

Bill Price
5 years ago

@Paradoxical Intention

It wasn’t my intent to stigmatize people with mental illness, but rather to say that it’s cruel to punish them on the pretext that it’s good for their kids. If they can’t handle the kids, OK, that’s understandable, but then to pile debt on their heads because they are psychologically wounded/ill and then throw them in prison is just unconscionable brutality.

Honestly, I think a lot of mental illness is the result of the way we treat people in contemporary society. Many of us (myself included) have gone through periods of great psychological stress, and adding to that isn’t the cure, but rather gratuitous sadism in my book.

We have a built up an enormous amount of “bad karma” (for lack of a better term) in this country, and I fear for our future as a result.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

God, fuck, finally Bill! I figured you’d either ask me for proof or link links to prove me wrong but I finally got you to post some damn links!

Please don’t make me have to become a troll to do this again in any other discussion. I really don’t like it.

And although I did have some faulty information in my post–which was that the UK child support system, which the average cost of support is £200–the Swedish system does allow payment to continue until the child is 21, but that’s the maximum age. 18 just happens to be the age that parents don’t have to legally pay for the kid anymore, but when the government can pay child support directly to the kid.

This is from:

https://www.forsakringskassan.se/wps/portal/sprak/eng/for_families_with_children_(barnfamiljer)/if_you_are_divorced_and_have_children/!ut/p/a1/hdBNS8NAEAbg3-IhYA_ubm1tU2_JoRCJil6Me1k2yeyHTXbDZJvQf28qIgiazm2Y54XhpZwWlDs5WC2D9U42551vRHzLHtN0mbDnzXrNst3-aZnmeRbvthN4nwD7ZxJ2Kf9G-Sx52c4D9rq6APK7bzDz5APl6kD6DuWBgNNEeRRKtrax0IvRBiMqY5sawYnrUqL7un0ALohV4uSPQiKI2g4eK6iFdLUwcoCf0LmlxJWrWFOOoAAByRGndk0IXX8fsYiN40i097oBUvk2Yn9FjO8DLX5L2rUFs9kNL0_j1SdrnSzb/dl5/d5/L0lDUmlTUSEhL3dHa0FKRnNBLzRKVXBDQSEhL2Vu/?keepNavState=true

Which is an official Swedish resource site (I’m pretty sure it’s THE social welfare site of Sweden, actually), and was recommended by the NCSEA:

http://www.ncsea.org/resources-info/international-child-support/u-s-visitors/sweden/

The system you want sounds very good, but as Kirby has pointed out, the current system is much harder on the custodial parent than it is on the non-custodial. While I can see why you want the system in place, you want it just because it doesn’t criminalize fathers instead of it being a better alternative for the kid to get the money it needs to be happy and healthy and let the parents not have to worry so much about getting money so they can live their own lives or pay more attention to their kid if they want.

But I think the biggest way to stop arresting parents for lack of payment is to decriminalize being poor. You get put in jail for all sorts of debts in America and child support is no different.

However, it stands that this topic really has nothing to do with which system is better as one) the police officer who shot Walter Scott in the back was not aware that Walter Scott had any outstanding debts, let alone stopped him for lack of child support payments; and two) nor are police suppose to shoot people in the goddamn back for running especially if they haven’t committed a violent crime or tried to hurt the police officer. I’m pretty sure a broken taillight is not a fucking violent crime and neither is being behind in child support.

We also don’t know if Walter Scott was running because he had outstanding child support payments. That’s just a theory that the fucking MRA has jumped on to make this all feminist fault.

There’s a time and place to discuss the child support system, but this is about Walter Scott and the MRA shitting on his death. This is about the MRA being absolute fucking scumbags who would take the obviously racially charged crime against a black man and make it all about how feminism is bad. That is what we should be talking about here instead of making it all about the child support system like the MRA are doing.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Price,
I’m at work and can’t really look for citations just now, but I really don’t the number of fathers who are either unwilling or unable to provide childcare is a small enough minority to brush off. Just anecdotally, I know several people who had absent fathers. Or there’s my uncle who had a serious drinking problem and when he was drinking he would not be able to care for anyone.

I’m in total agreement that addicts need help, not jail. We also need better mental health care so that people aren’t self medicating with alcohol or drugs. I was just saying that an addict who is using is not safe and responsible. The child comes first. Not either of the parents.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Bill Price | April 17, 2015 at 3:26 pm
@Paradoxical Intention
It wasn’t my intent to stigmatize people with mental illness, but rather to say that it’s cruel to punish them on the pretext that it’s good for their kids. If they can’t handle the kids, OK, that’s understandable, but then to pile debt on their heads because they are psychologically wounded/ill and then throw them in prison is just unconscionable brutality.

I agree with that assessment, but this feels like backpedaling considering you didn’t say any of this prior.

You came right out and said (and I’m going to paraphrase here) “People with mental illnesses shouldn’t be taking care of kids because most terrible parents have mental illnesses”.

This wasn’t about the debt in your last post.

Honestly, I think a lot of mental illness is the result of the way we treat people in contemporary society. Many of us (myself included) have gone through periods of great psychological stress, and adding to that isn’t the cure, but rather gratuitous sadism in my book.

Or perhaps it could be that these mental illnesses have been around for quite some time, and we’ve only just now discovered what causes some of them, or we’ve just now realized the fact that some of them are, in fact, mental illnesses.

Sure, we have a lot more stress in “contemporary society” than a lot of societies prior, but we’ve also got it pretty good in a lot of ways as well.

Back in ye olde Victorian times, I would have been thrown into a very terrible institution (most likely by a male family member, if not a husband that I would have been forced to marry) and been misdiagnosed and abused physically and sexually by doctors and staff by now. All because I show symptoms of depression and anxiety.

We have a built up an enormous amount of “bad karma” (for lack of a better term) in this country, and I fear for our future as a result.

It’s true that we’ve built up a lot of negative feelings (and, trust me, it’s not just here), but I think you’re a little off on where the blame lies.

Bill Price
5 years ago

We also don’t know if Walter Scott was running because he had outstanding child support payments. That’s just a theory that the fucking MRA has jumped on to make this all feminist fault.

There’s a time and place to discuss the child support system, but this is about Walter Scott and the MRA shitting on his death. This is about the MRA being absolute fucking scumbags who would take the obviously racially charged crime against a black man and make it all about how feminism is bad. That is what we should be talking about here instead of making it all about the child support system like the MRA are doing.

-Banana Jackie

I don’t think it’s just a theory MRAs came up with, because his family confirmed that this was the issue. And MRAs were pretty slow on this one. AVfM, for example, took almost a week to bring it up.

Mostly it was originally cast as a racial issue, which it may be in part, but given Walter Scott’s background and generally non-criminal nature it would take some factual contortion to ignore the child support issue. He was even featured in an older article on “deadbeat dads” from 2003, so he’d been dogged by this for a long time. There’s no other good explanation for his snap decision to flee.

Obviously, you don’t see it the same way I do. That’s fine. But I honestly relate to Scott, having been there myself, and I can understand his impulse to run for it. It wasn’t an ideal decision, and I doubt I’d do the same, but I can definitely understand it. It also seems that the mainstream has generally accepted this explanation as well. That’s a good thing, because now maybe his death will not have been in vain.

Keep in mind that I don’t blame his ex or his kids. They have little to no say in this drama, so for MRAs to blame them is irresponsible at best. But I think the politicians, judges, police and attorneys involved have a lot to answer for. Too bad most of them are “above” accountability. My biggest concern here is that Officer Slager alone will take the fall, and the other culpable actors will carry on as usual, pretending they had nothing to do with it.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

Mostly it was originally cast as a racial issue, which it may be in part, but given Walter Scott’s background and generally non-criminal nature it would take some factual contortion to ignore the child support issue. He was even featured in an older article on “deadbeat dads” from 2003, so he’d been dogged by this for a long time. There’s no other good explanation for his snap decision to flee.

Multiple things can be going on in the same case. Child support could have caused Scott to run. Racism likely caused the cop to shoot. As the shooting is the issue, more so than the running, it has been cast as a racial issue. By focusing so much on the child support, you’re giving off the impression that you think the running was the issue, more so than the shooting. That’s not a great impression to give.

Bill Price
5 years ago

I’m at work and can’t really look for citations just now, but I really don’t the number of fathers who are either unwilling or unable to provide childcare is a small enough minority to brush off.

-weirwoodtreehugger

The idea isn’t to brush them off, but rather not to suggest that they are the standard non-custodial parent. Most non-custodial fathers care about their kids, and most are competent enough to spend the day and night with them without supervision. But today they must confront the presumption that they are not fit to parent, and that’s ridiculous and counterproductive.

Yes, those with problems of a non-violent, non-deceptive nature need help and not incarceration. Sadly, they usually do not have that option today. We should ask ourselves whether we want to be complicit in a system that punishes people merely for suffering from misfortune rather than for intentionally inflicting harm on others. I don’t. I couldn’t in good conscience punish someone for personal misfortune absent bad intentions. It’s a terrible thing to do. Frankly, it makes me sick to see “Christians” who advocate for this kind of society. Worst kind of hypocrites possible.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

Thank you, Kirby. We shouldn’t be concentrating on why Walter Scott ran but why the fuck the cop shot him in the goddamn back and how terrible the MRA are to make it all feminism fault.

That’s kinda the entire point of WHtM, actually. What system of child support is better shouldn’t even have been brought into the discussion.

In fact, let me bring it back on topic:

The MRA are terrible shitheels for making an issue of a man getting shot in the back all feminism fault for any reason. It’s almost like they don’t even care that a man got shot–oh, wait, they don’t, they just want to circle jerk each other while talking about how horrible woman are by using Walter Scott’s death as a jumping off point. It’s like a shitty game of Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon that ends with nothing being connect to Kevin Bacon.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

By focusing so much on the child support, you’re giving off the impression that you think the running was the issue, more so than the shooting. That’s not a great impression to give.

I’d like to second this one from Kirby.

Bill, I think you’re coming from a decent place, but this is a huge problem I have with what’s going on here. Yeah, we need to fix some things.

But we need to keep in mind that he isn’t dead because he ran, but because an awful police officer chose to use lethal measures when there was absolutely no justifiable reason.

We can talk about other factors (and you are talking about things that are important) but it would be awesome if you spoke of them with a little more respect to the circumstances.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

…also, this might not be the best forum for that discussion about things, and definitely might not be the best thread…

But, it’s a relatively free internet, so if you really, really want to keep discussing it here, just don’t be surprised if there are some folks who get progressively more annoyed.

(Instead of me, who started out really annoyed because I was fresh off dealing with awful and got you confused with awful and is now trying to remember how to be a nice person after my unfounded rawr-awful-person-annoyance start).

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

It’s like a shitty game of Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon that ends with nothing being connect to Kevin Bacon.

Actually, that would be the best game of Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon. Can’t you see the headlines?


“Bacon-less Hollywood” Discovered After Game Gone Awry

On Tuesday, Samantha was hanging out with some friends. To pass the time, she suggested they play a common game. The results, however, were anything but common.

“We discovered an entire section of Hollywood that has no connections to Kevin Bacon,” she said.

The game, known as Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon, is to try to pick a random actor from Hollywood, and find some connection to actor Kevin Bacon. Each “degree” is found by listing co-actors in a movie the actor has been in, and the theory is that you can always find a path to Kevin Bacon within 6 steps.

Until Tuesday.

“I was shocked,” one of Samantha’s friends stated, “I thought we just hadn’t seen enough movies. But even using the internet, we couldn’t find a the path.”

It turns out that there is a single, strange path of interconnected movies an actors, none of whom have ever acted in a movie with Kevin Bacon.

“Nothing worked, there was no Bacon,” another friend stated. “It nearly drove me up the wall. How is this possible? A whole secret sliver of Hollywood without Kevin Bacon, how is it even possible?” But there it is!

Mr. Bacon could not be reached for comment.

Bill Price
5 years ago

But we need to keep in mind that he isn’t dead because he ran, but because an awful police officer chose to use lethal measures when there was absolutely no justifiable reason.

We can talk about other factors (and you are talking about things that are important) but it would be awesome if you spoke of them with a little more respect to the circumstances.

Yes, the crime the cop committed was terrible. But he’s been arrested and will be facing murder charges. What can I add to that? Not much.

The circumstances that criminalized Walter Scott, on the other hand, are not facing trial, but I think they should. You may not feel that they are important, and if so this is where we part ways, and I’ll happily and immediately leave you alone with your conscience as I have the MRAs — browbeating people doesn’t work anyway. But if you care about that injustice, as I do, then I’ll do my best to provide you with knowledge and tools to prevent it, and I hope you’ll join me in that.

Bill Price
5 years ago

But, it’s a relatively free internet, so if you really, really want to keep discussing it here, just don’t be surprised if there are some folks who get progressively more annoyed.

-contrapangloss

OK, fair enough.

I’ve probably made about as much of a point as I could here. Enjoy your weekend.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

Kirby, you’re amazing.

But, honestly, losing 6 Degrees is easy:

Lust in the Time of Heartache

0 Degrees from any actor who’s ever worked with Kevin Bacon in anyway. I win.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

@Banana, Faith Amantea has a Bacon rating of 3.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

Faith Amantea
was in
Herschell Gordon Lewis’ BloodMania (2015)
with
Angela White (IV)
was in
Knockaround Guys (2001)
with
John Malkovich
was in
Queens Logic (1991)
with
Kevin Bacon

i was bored stop looking at me funny *blush*

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

@isdore13

In my defense, I just wanted to crap on that shitty movie.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

heeeee it had it coming, i am just really bored on my day off lol

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

@isdore13

Isn’t that what booze and/or DVR is for? Or YouTube? 😛

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
5 years ago

You may not feel that they are important, and if so this is where we part ways, and I’ll happily and immediately leave you alone with your conscience

What a happy coincidence, as I’m off work now and will thus be around to screen any further comments attempting to link Walter Scott’s murder to the child support system or any other MRA hobby horse.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Not quite sure how you got “You may not think these are important” from a passage you blockquoted that said “and you are talking about things that are important”, but okay?

I suppose I don’t really have a leg to stand on after this morning’s shenanigans, but that’s still a little odd.

My conscience and I will do our best to enjoy ourselves during our upcoming ‘not weekend’ of work.

@ Kirbywarp:

You are amazing.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Given that a black man or boy is killed by a cop seemingly every day without child support having anything to do with the story, my conscience is clear for assessing this as having to do with racism. I highly doubt that the cop who shot Tamir Rice suspected him of owing child support. Since he was a child himself and all. It’s really out of line to suggest we should feel guilty for seeing this murder as part of a pattern of racism.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

It annoys me the most is that the topic got derailed so much that 2/3 of it is all about child support and now the topic is second page, which means no one will discuss it anymore.

Instead of a frank discussion about Walter Scott and the MRA, we have a debate about how the child support system does or doesn’t discriminate women and men. This is shit.