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
Lea
Lea
5 years ago

It strikes me that in a US where both parents can earn a living wage on their own, where there is a strong social safety net and far fewer parents imprisoned for being born poor and/or black this conversation would be very different and Mr. Scott’s kids would still have a dad.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

…unless our racist, blood thirsty police found another excuse to execute him.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Bill Price,
Monthly child support averaged $430 a month in the US as of 2012. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/children/cb12-109.html

That’s not even enough to cover daycare costs. I can guarantee that custodial parents spend a lot more than that every month. Do you have a better source than the federal government that proves fathers are all oppressed and being forced to pay unreasonable amounts?

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

Seriously, Bill, do you have any links or citations to back up what you’re asserting? I really want to see them.

sparky
sparky
5 years ago

Well, this thread is certainly infested with trolls. What is it about “the cop who murdered Walter Scott is the person who is guilty of murdering Walter Scott” that brought these guys out of the woodwork? They really want to blame a woman. They really want to blame an unarmed black man for being shot in the back. Anyone but the white man who pulled the trigger.

This bit by Price is funny, though:

However, the custodial parent doesn’t have to pay a dime of their child support – it’s just on the books

That’s because the custodial parent is already using their child support to, y’know, financially support the child/ren in their custody.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

However, the custodial parent doesn’t have to pay a dime of their child support — it’s just on the books.

I’m just going to sit back and marvel at the stupid in this comment.

The custodial parent is already paying child support by supporting the child and having them live in their house. Of course they’re spending money on the kid. FFS.

The custodial parent is paying rent and utility bills to make the house livable for them and the child, they’re also buying the child clothes and food and making sure they get to school and what have you.

Let’s take into account your hypothetical figures: if the non-custodial parent has to pay only $800 per month, that isn’t going to cover much if the custodial parent needs things day care or after-school activities to give their child a better life and something to do while the custodial parent is at work.

So, where does the difference come from? The custodial parent’s pocket! Yay!

brooked
5 years ago

Politicized feminism, in my opinion, deserve a share of the blame for supporting the policies that treat these fathers as though they are less than full human beings, and deprive them of the civil rights enjoyed by other citizens (trial by jury, right to counsel, and right to clear debt through bankruptcy).

It’s a bit head scratching how Price always blames feminism for flaws in the legal system, especially those that penalize the poor.

brooked
5 years ago

While Walter Scott’s ex-wife/wives may not be personally responsible for what happened to him, child support enforcement in SC definitely played a role.

“Walter Scott’s ex-wife/wives may not be personally responsible” for a cop murdering him? That’s big of you Price.

I had earlier posts, based in part on a Huff Po article, about how the child support enforcement in SC is broken and criminalizes the poor, despite me being a feminist and Huff Po being part of the gynocentric MSM. It’s almost as if we don’t hate fathers.

Of course you don’t hate mothers, you just blame the actions on of murderous police officer on them, because “politicized feminism” ruins everything.

brooked
5 years ago

As for what percentage were placed under an unreasonable obligation, I would say all of them according to European standards. Every last one. US child support guidelines are the highest on earth, even though as a society we are falling behind a lot of other countries on living standards and economic mobility.

Blame conservatives who refuse to spend money on any programs that could take some of the burden off poor parents.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

Income shares (which include Delaware’s model) and percentage model are just two different paths to the same result. With income shares they take both parents’ income, then come up with a base child support obligation for each parent, which is based on the percentage each parent contributes.

Alrighty then. First, a note; you are moving the goalposts. You claimed that the only model for child support calculations was a percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income without any consideration for the custodial parent’s. I showed this claim to be false.

The reason you brought this up was because of this hypothetical:

That’s a common misconception. Child support awards are in fact only based on the non-custodial parent’s income. A custodial mother could be pulling down 80k per year and it wouldn’t change the father’s obligation even if he made less than a third that amount.

You then switch tactics and say that even if the laws do take into account the custodial parent’s income, it doesn’t have any affect on the total amount due.

Well, let’s do some calculations first, just for the hell of it. I’ve got a site that lets you calculate an estimate for child support due based on individual state laws. Let’s plug in some numbers! Let’s use your example of 80k a year custodial parent and 1/3 of that for the non-custodial. Since the calculators are using monthly values, let’s use some very rough approximations: 6k for the custodial, 2k for the noncustodial. 2 children, since you mentioned that as an example as well.

For other fields, let’s assume no previous marriages, and something stupid like 100$ a month each for health insurance and daycare by the custodial parent. If it asks about child ages, let’s say the eldest is 7-12. As for any overnights or visitation policies, let’s go with 0 if it asks.

Alabama: which uses the Income Shares model. 448$

Arizona: which uses the Income Shares model. 398$

Colorodo: which uses the Income Shares model. 418$

DC: which uses the Obligor’s Percentage. 323$

Nevada: which uses the Obligor’s Percentage. 500$

New York: which uses the Obligor’s Percentage: Total child support: 505$ (no taxes withheld)

So, basically, it varies a ton. If you put in smart values for net vs gross incomes (I tried to stick to ones that asked for gross only), you’d probably be able to get cleaner results. Seems like the shared income models tend to be a little lower, with the percentage states sometimes pretty obviously based on 25%.

Now let’s actually think about things for a second. Child support is supposed to be based on what the child would have received had the couple stayed together. In that sense, it’d be natural for support payments to always be a percentage of income for both parents. If the custodial parent makes much more than the noncustodial, the amount that would have been available to the child would be higher so the standard is higher.

What is the issue with this? The alternative is to set some absolute minimum monthly cost of a child, which can’t possibly apply to everyone, even within a state. Are you trying to find a system where the hypothetical 80k/26k parents would have the NCP pay nothing?

Also remember that these are guidelines. Courts make the final pronouncements, and would usually (I hope) take into account livable wages for all parties. If you actually want to argue that the percentages hit the poor harder (a sentiment I’d agree with) and that courts are ignoring whether the NCP can actually pay the support and still live, go ahead. But provide some actual evidence, not just assertions and hand-waving “it’s probably like this.”

SIDE NOTE: At least one calculator that I saw asked for how many overnights the children stayed with the NCP. Presumably this would decrease the child support payment. I’ll bet you weren’t aware of this, given your tendency to think of child support laws as a monolith.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

The custodial parent is paying a lot for the kids. There’s increased utility costs (for electricity to charge kiddo’s belongings, to illuminate rooms the kiddo is in, to microwave kiddos afterschool warm snacks, to illuminate rooms the kiddo has vacated without turning out the lights), there’s clothing, there’s the extra food kiddo consumes, there’s the cost of school supplies (which easily gets up there if parents aren’t being uber thrifty and demanding kiddo reuse or use up old crayons and pencils), there’s the cost of babysitters or daycare so that the parent can work, there’s the cost of bedding, there’s the cost of extra-educational stuff like piano lessons (if it can be afforded) or toys (if they can be afforded).

Kids are expensive, yo.

One estimate was that raising a kid in the US to adulthood costs an average of $245,340 to raise a kid born two years ago to the age of 18.

For reference, that’d be an average of about $1,135.83 dollars a month (more than I make in a week right now) in just accounting costs. It doesn’t factor in opportunity costs like being able to pick up an extra overtime shift now and then, or having to take a part time job to reduce child-care costs, or the emotional stresses of little squirts.

Seriously, dude, $430 is not near enough to fully support a child. The custodial parent is doing a ton and paying quite a bit to accomplish it all.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

(also, everything Kirbywarp just said)

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

As for what percentage were placed under an unreasonable obligation, I would say all of them according to European standards. Every last one. US child support guidelines are the highest on earth, even though as a society we are falling behind a lot of other countries on living standards and economic mobility.

Citations, please. Hell, I don’t even disagree that the US is terrible in terms of living standards and mobility, but for god’s sake you’ve done nothing but assert. Give me a spread sheet of average monthly child support payments per country, or something! What are you even basing your beliefs on if not numbers? Anecdotal evidence?

I dug around and found one paper attempting to compare child support schemes across different countries that echoes at least the spirit of some of your complaints of the US system. Who knows; if you could actually back up your position with papers like this, and you actually knew what you were talking about, and you stopped pretending it was the big bad feminists’ fault, you could find more supporters to fight the real injustices that occur.

A couple things I do know for sure, though. As brooked said, there is no point to blaming feminism or women for these issues, and the issue of child support has very little to do with Walter Scott’s death.

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

Shorter Bill: “Kids are expensive and wages are low! There’s nothing left over for a decent life once you’ve fed them, kept the lights on and covered down on the childcare”

Shorter feminists: “no shit, Sherlock”

Really, though, I think part of it is that the US middle class has kind of mandated a certain standard of care for kids, but then… largely doesn’t fund it, because bootstraps and June Cleaver or whatever. They expect kids to be safely and constructively supervised pretty much 24/7, but people under a certain income threshold often find that pretty near impossible… cue accusations of deliberate child neglect. Sucks.

Hell, I’ve been arrested for letting my kids play outside while I was inside TCOB with my schoolwork and/or cooking dinner, in an effort to get better paying work and thus raise the family’s standard of living or serve healthy affordable meals while the kids got some exercise. It’s the only time I’ve ever been arrested. Handcuffs, fingerprints, mug shot, the whole nine. Bananas.

Charges were (I think) dropped after I took six hours of parenting class at the “suggestion” of the prosecuting attorney, but… yeah. makes it hard for me to be like, omg, politicized feminism is to blame for how sucky it is to raise kids in the US! More like, laws written by mostly well-off dudes who are pretty thoroughly insulated from the reality of family life down in the trenches.

If anyone, feminists seem likelier to grok the class issues involved in the contemporary parenting/childcare scene than your average conservative upper-middle-class stick-in-butt types, who I generally avoid at all costs. lol

brooked
5 years ago

Hell, I’ve been arrested for letting my kids play outside while I was inside TCOB with my schoolwork and/or cooking dinner, in an effort to get better paying work and thus raise the family’s standard of living or serve healthy affordable meals while the kids got some exercise. It’s the only time I’ve ever been arrested. Handcuffs, fingerprints, mug shot, the whole nine. Bananas.

If this bullshit happened in the 1970s there would have been mass arrests through out my town. I played in woods alone as a little kid all the time and never died once.

Sorry these asshole feel the need to humiliate good parents who don’t stare directly at their children every waking hour or hire someone else full time to do it for them.

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

Sorry these asshole feel the need to humiliate good parents who don’t stare directly at their children every waking hour or hire someone else full time to do it for them.

I don’t think it’s deliberate– it’s mostly just a kind of privilege blindness, mixed with paranoia. But yeah, standards for what constitutes acceptable parenting are significantly higher than they were 30 years ago, so it’s kind of amusing to me that fathers-rights people get all het up about the fact that CS is so high– that level of longterm direct supervision/surveillance costs and it’s not necessarily the broke-as-hell custodial parents who are demanding it. I think a lot of NCPs tend to just think of CS in terms of just food/clothes/shoes (sometimes in 1970 prices, too, lol) and never seem to get where the rest of the money is supposed to be going. Conclusion: she’s ripping me off!!!

The conservatives are the ones who freaked out about “latchkey kids” but it COSTS to have an adult pulled off of other productive tasks to mind the young-uns all the time. Pick a side, fellas. Geez

Personally I think a combo of chilling out about the standards of acceptable supervision and increasing state support to parents would be a really good thing, but you are NEVER gonna hear that from the men’s-rights crowd, because misogyny is what actually holds that center.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@ceebarks

The conservatives are the ones who freaked out about “latchkey kids” but it COSTS to have an adult pulled off of other productive tasks to mind the young-uns all the time. Pick a side, fellas. Geez

It’s weird. Well, not weird… but it seems like the “conservative” pattern is “you should take responsibility for yourself and be ‘free’ to live your life without government involvement or assistance, but be punished if you don’t meet our high standards.” Countries that Price seems to like so much, like Norway, tend to be more leftist, provide greater family benefits, and seem to have child support schemes that are viewed more favorably. And of course, these are the same countries that MRAs complain to be run by the feminist hive-mind and be absolute hell for men.

MRAs need to sit down and ask themselves what their priorities are; hating women or helping men. In practice, it really does seem to be the case that the two are exclusive.

Bill Price
5 years ago

SIDE NOTE: At least one calculator that I saw asked for how many overnights the children stayed with the NCP. Presumably this would decrease the child support payment. I’ll bet you weren’t aware of this, given your tendency to think of child support laws as a monolith.

-kirbywarp

Of course I’m aware of it, because I wanted to have my kids half-time and was fully capable of providing that care at the time. The overnights deductions start at over 35%, and I got exactly 35% overnights. It wasn’t by accident.

There’s an incentive not only for lawyers and custodial parents but also for the federal government to designate a primary custodial parent (tax purposes). To the victor go the spoils. The loser gets to pay a pound of flesh.

However, the sad reality is that the “winning” parent usually doesn’t come out in such great shape either, because non-parenting is incentivized for non-custodial parents. And as weirwoodtreehugger points out daycare costs an arm and a leg, so it would be better for both parents and the kids if they could cooperate on childcare by trading off rather than putting it all on one who gets a fraction of what daycare costs.

Really, though, I think part of it is that the US middle class has kind of mandated a certain standard of care for kids, but then… largely doesn’t fund it, because bootstraps and June Cleaver or whatever. They expect kids to be safely and constructively supervised pretty much 24/7, but people under a certain income threshold often find that pretty near impossible… cue accusations of deliberate child neglect. Sucks.

Hell, I’ve been arrested for letting my kids play outside while I was inside TCOB with my schoolwork and/or cooking dinner, in an effort to get better paying work and thus raise the family’s standard of living or serve healthy affordable meals while the kids got some exercise. It’s the only time I’ve ever been arrested. Handcuffs, fingerprints, mug shot, the whole nine. Bananas.

-ceebarks

Yes, totally insane. My mom used to put me in charge of my little sister when I was only four while she went jogging or whatever. We were fine. That was back in ’78 or ’79. I really can’t believe how these people who could parent as they pleased have turned the screws on us. I think it’s all about making more work for themselves by overregulating childcare. In a sane world, you should be able to sue whoever called the cops on you for letting your kids play outside. It should be under the category of malicious harassment or something along those lines. I’m sorry it happened to you. Makes me angry when I think of it.

BTW, this whole June Cleaver thing is totally BS. Most boomers were allowed to run free as kids. My maternal grandma even made the kids leave the house and then rang a cowbell for dinner (in the suburbs — not on a farm).

The more I look into this system the more I realize that it isn’t just an issue that damages men, but rather a wholesale attack on parents and family in general.

That’s my new revelation I had last fall. Family and community are under sustained assault by profiteering assholes, so we need to put an end to these stupid gender wars to save these critical (and natural) institutions and make our and our children’s lives better.

Robert
Robert
5 years ago

I am frequently aware of how monstrously difficult care for our older son would be if I were not able to be a SAHP. It’s disturbing to me that our culture has two options for the chronically mentally ill – institutionalization or homelessness – and the PTB are working on eliminating the first one.

The argument against child support seems to boil down to “I don’t get to live with my kids, I don’t care what happens to ’em.” If you, as a parent, were living with your children, you would be legally responsible for their care and feeding. I understand that this can make it harder for a divorced man to begin supporting other children, but it’s not just to penalize the children.

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

@kirbywarp Yeah, it’s messed up but that’s pretty much it. Basically people (typically) have kids when they are younger and haven’t peaked income-wise yet, and this is especially true of women, who have a shorter biological timeframe to have kids, more cultural pressure to have them, and WAY more cultural pressure to cut back on paid work to tend to them once born. There’s even pressure to to plan and choose their careers with the expectation that they’ll have to cut back or drop out, years in advance of it actually happening.

(MRAs are totally ok with all of those things– in fact they revel in them! but are angry that there’s any downside in it for dudes, at all, EVER. I’m like, what the fuck? lol)

anyway, it seems reasonable to me that if reproducing and raising kids is soooooooo fucking important to society-as-a-whole, then society as a whole needs to get off its high horse and help pay some bills instead of issuing edicts and expecting the resources to fulfil them to come out of thin air. I know this all hits low-income dads, too, but why Bill-and-bros think women get off scot free on all this exasperating contradictory pressure ’cause “politicized feminism” is seriously beyond me.

OM

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

However, the sad reality is that the “winning” parent usually doesn’t come out in such great shape either, because non-parenting is incentivized for non-custodial parents. And as weirwoodtreehugger points out daycare costs an arm and a leg, so it would be better for both parents and the kids if they could cooperate on childcare by trading off rather than putting it all on one who gets a fraction of what daycare costs.

*sigh* Price, we’re talking about divorce here. A couple with children where one or both feel the need to separate from each other. Joint custody is not always an option, nor is it always the best outcome. 40% of the cases that go to court do end up in joint custody, but 60% don’t, and likely for very good reason. It’d be nice if we had a system that seems to produce less parental conflict (as Norway’s might), but you can’t get there by legislating the outcome. If you want to address reality, stop basing your ideals solely on what you wanted in your own situation.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@ceebarks:

anyway, it seems reasonable to me that if reproducing and raising kids is soooooooo fucking important to society-as-a-whole, then society as a whole needs to get off its high horse and help pay some bills instead of issuing edicts and expecting the resources to fulfil them to come out of thin air.

Hear hear. This is true of quite a lot of things. I’m pretty sure there’s some fundamental notion at the root of it that poor folks or folks otherwise without the necessary resources are just not trying hard enough; that if they worked harder they’d be able to keep up with society’s demands. Hence all the outcries against any sort of government benefits or assistance.

It’s like an assumption that the poor are lying. I guess if society took the opposite position, they’d be forced to come to terms with the fact that the American Dream is just a dream.

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

es, totally insane. My mom used to put me in charge of my little sister when I was only four while she went jogging or whatever. We were fine. That was back in ’78 or ’79.

yep, that would probably get her clapped off to the station now, lol At least it’d merit a CPS investigation.

Fortunately the social worker who came to “check things out” after my little run-in with the law seemed pretty nice and quite reasonable, though apparently what I did WAS illegal. (!) Arguing that “I could see them through the fricken window! I was doing homework and cooking dinner, not meth!” did not get me far, either. Meh.

I decided six hours of parenting class was cheaper and less stressful than trying to argue about it in court.

Two+ years later, I’m hoping my background check comes back clean, since “Child Neglect” is. ah, not a good look for future employers. Makes it sound like I didn’t feed them for a week or abandoned them in Vegas or something awful. sheesh

M.
M.
5 years ago

That’s my new revelation I had last fall. Family and community are under sustained assault by profiteering assholes, so we need to put an end to these stupid gender wars to save these critical (and natural) institutions and make our and our children’s lives better.

Last fall? Then why did you post this two days ago:

Politicized feminism, in my opinion, deserve a share of the blame for supporting the policies that treat these fathers as though they are less than full human beings, and deprive them of the civil rights enjoyed by other citizens (trial by jury, right to counsel, and right to clear debt through bankruptcy).

Bill Price
5 years ago

It’d be nice if we had a system that seems to produce less parental conflict (as Norway’s might), but you can’t get there by legislating the outcome.

-kirbywarp

I’m in complete agreement with you here. Delegislating the outcome is the key. And yes, Norway and Sweden are paragons of family function and good childrearing compared to the US despite high illegitimacy and lots of single parents.

BTW, both my ex and I have significant Norwegian American ancestry. If we’d gone through a separation and divorce in the old country I highly doubt it would have been nearly as fraught as it was here, so it isn’t a matter of race/ancestry. The US system is designed to create problems and conflict.

Bill Price
5 years ago

Two+ years later, I’m hoping my background check comes back clean, since “Child Neglect” is. ah, not a good look for future employers. Makes it sound like I didn’t feed them for a week or abandoned them in Vegas or something awful. sheesh

-ceebarks

Don’t worry. Unless you live in a total asshole state it should be sealed for all but state social workers, and you can get it cleared in a few years. I’ve never been found negligent or abusive, but my former mother in law accused me during divorce to spite me, so I’m familiar with the process.

Last fall? Then why did you post this two days ago

Because I think feminism is part of the problem too. But to be fair so is MRA. Holistic considerations are much better than individualistic where families are concerned. This means advocating just for men or just for women is counterproductive. We need to take the complementary, communal nature of human beings into account. We are not merely men or women, but brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters etc. I’m a man with a sister, mother, daughter and wife. Should their well-being somehow be in competition with or detrimental to mine? Should mine to theirs? It’s preposterous when you see things in terms of the family and community.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

I’m in complete agreement with you here.

erm…

Delegislating the outcome is the key. And yes, Norway and Sweden are paragons of family function and good childrearing compared to the US despite high illegitimacy and lots of single parents.

No, apparently you aren’t. My emphasis was on the “outcome,” not on “legislation.” We need a different model and approach across a broad variety of elements of our legal system, not simply fewer laws. You appear to be insisting that the solution is for parents to agree to do more joint custody arrangements; I’m saying that you can’t just expect that to happen by fiat, or even design laws around the idea that that is the ideal situation for everyone.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

Price, neither feminism nor the MRM have been in power long enough (or at all) to have constructed child custody/support laws. Feminism is not interested in a gender war, and the specific issues of women’s rights are even somewhat orthogonal to the general issue of child support and divorce (which is currently written in law as gender neutral).

This means advocating just for men or just for women is counterproductive.

You’ve been posting on a feminist comment section for a couple days consecutively by now. Who here is couching the discussion in terms of men vs women, or in terms of gender at all?

sparky
sparky
5 years ago

Because I think feminism is part of the problem too. But to be fair so is MRA. Holistic considerations are much better than individualistic where families are concerned. This means advocating just for men or just for women is counterproductive. We need to take the complementary, communal nature of human beings into account. We are not merely men or women, but brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters etc. I’m a man with a sister, mother, daughter and wife. Should their well-being somehow be in competition with or detrimental to mine? Should mine to theirs? It’s preposterous when you see things in terms of the family and community.

What an odd definition you have of feminism there, Mr. Price.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
5 years ago

So what happens when your car breaks down and you need to get to work? Do you pay the mechanic and skip a CS payment so you can keep your job? Usually, yes, so you end up in arrears. Then, maybe, you get sick. Do you pay the deductible and go see a doctor? It’s a tossup, perhaps, depending on the illness/injury. You either hope you’re OK or, again, go into arrears. Go into arrears far enough and they seize your license, then you drive anyway to keep your job hoping you won’t get caught. But you didn’t have enough to fix that broken taillight, so you get pulled over and sent to jail for driving suspended. Then you lose your job.

OK, but how is child support different from any other debt in this scenario? You could replace it with college loans or credit card debt or healthcare bills and it’d be exactly the same.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Emilygoddess,
Exactly! The problem here is the increasing number of Americans who are near poor. That is, one lost paycheck or unanticipated expense away from poverty. This is in no way the fault of “politicized” feminism (what is non political feminism? That’s not even a possible thing). You won’t find many feminists who oppose higher wages, stronger unions, and a more robust social safety nets so that people aren’t having to pick and choose between financial obligations.

Price’s continued insistence that feminists are trying to impoverish men via the family court system is just bizarre. It’s like he came up with a theory and is determined to stick with it, no matter what the evidence suggests.

Suzy Q
Suzy Q
5 years ago

Seriously, this argument about family courts oppressing men has been disproven so many times I’ve lost count. But because it resonates with so many men MRAs continue to use it as their main talking point. It can happen to you too! No man is safe! Like conservatives scaring people with manufactured threats of terrorism.

Bill Price
5 years ago

OK, but how is child support different from any other debt in this scenario? You could replace it with college loans or credit card debt or healthcare bills and it’d be exactly the same.

There’s no comparison at all if you take enforcement into account. You think Walter Scott would run from the cops over student loans? This is about the most naïve statement about child support enforcement I’ve seen in a while.

Well, I hope I made a point for some people. Like I said in the first post, I wouldn’t have bothered if I didn’t feel strongly about this issue. But if you don’t want to hear it, that’s life. It’s going to be up to bureaucrats to deal with this, and I suspect that they are already fully aware that taking more than 20% of pretax income actually lowers collections. Maybe eventually the worst policies will be scaled back in a low-profile manner so the radicals can save face.

I hope so for the sake of the Walter Scotts of this country. And their children, too.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

You have made no points because you refuse to back up any of your claims with actual data. You don’t like backing up any of your claims with actual data, I remember this from when you’ve commented before. Are you allergic to data? Or is it because you can’t find any to back up your assertions?

Bill Price
5 years ago

You have made no points because you refuse to back up any of your claims with actual data. You don’t like backing up any of your claims with actual data, I remember this from when you’ve commented before. Are you allergic to data? Or is it because you can’t find any to back up your assertions?

-isidiore13

What I write is based on data. I’ve studied this issue for years, and I’m honest as far as I know the law and statistics. If you think I’m wrong, it’s your job to cite data that contradict what I write — not mine.

That’s my last word on these “citations” demands. You doubt me? Then you do the research, and, “citations please.” I’ll be happy to answer if the data are relevant (and if I have the time).

BTW, I think a lot of the women and men commenting here are decent people. I think Dave’s alright, too, but he’s doing what I was until recently — taking sides. If I can get something going again, and I think I can soon, I’m open to a conversation with people from both sides of the issue, because we need it. We need to rise above this juvenile mutual recrimination.

I’m not going to hand it down to my kids — that’s for sure.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

Right, so, you feel like you have no need to back up your claims because you’re too good to do that I guess? For some reason I’m supposed to take you at your word? Good to know.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

It’s not our job to research your claims. You make the claim, you back it up.

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

That’s why Kirby provided links. You can at least name the places where you get the statistics so we know you’re not just pulling crap out of the air.

Bill Price
5 years ago

Right, so, you feel like you have no need to back up your claims because you’re too good to do that I guess? For some reason I’m supposed to take you at your word? Good to know.

-Isidore13

Not too good for it at all. Research is real, honest-to-goodness work. I did it for years in another job, and my eyes have paid a price for it. You aren’t going to pay me for it, so it’s an unreasonable demand. It’s like saying “since you said you know plumbing, then come over and fix my kitchen sink to prove it.”

Like I said, if you want to put in the work (as I already have), feel free to do so and use citations to prove me wrong. I enjoy repartee, and I’m not bothered by being corrected, because I actually like the truth and learning new things. David does the work when he writes and makes links, and that’s why it’s totally reasonable when he asks for donations. But why on earth would he do it for Paul Elam unless it was on behalf of his readers?

It’s just unreasonable and a silly demand. If you don’t think I’m trustworthy, fine. I think I’m honest, and I can’t recall trying to deceive people about these matters ever. Maybe I’ve been wrong here and there. Wouldn’t surprise me — it’s statistically all but certain. But if I have to prove I’m right every time that’s too much to ask.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

It’s not that I think you are lying, it’s that I don’t know you and I have no idea what your experience is or where you’re getting your information. And no, it’s really not an unreasonable demand, it’s pretty standard, actually. It’s something that is asked of everyone here. Your unwillingness to do so signifies 1. You don’t really respect the people you’re having a discussion with; 2. You’re not sure the data will actually back up your claim; and 3. You don’t really want a discussion, you want to come in, lay down your beliefs, and have everyone agree with you without a lick of evidence.

Bill Price
5 years ago

@Isidore13

Yeah, I understand. But all I can say is that I’ve already put an enormous amount of time into studying this issue. And today I was pushing paper all morning and then taking care of a baby all afternoon. It doesn’t have anything to do with respect, but rather practicality. I need to deal with life just like everyone else.

So my response to your list:

1. Respect has nothing to do with it. I’m pretty objective about facts. If you’re right you’re right, no matter what your politics. Unless you’re clearly deranged I give your statements the same weight as anyone else’s.

2. I have a lot of faith in my knowledge of this subject. I’ve read an enormous amount of data about it, and am confident enough that I don’t feel the need to go back and look it up in order to make statements, just as you don’t need to use a dictionary to speak English or (presumably) a manual to do your job every day. Additionally, I’ve already made a whole lot of of citations. Hundreds if not thousands of them.

3. If I didn’t want a discussion, I wouldn’t waste my time. I’d just write a blog post condemning your views to people who would take my word for it. For the record, I now think that’s the wrong approach. As for not “a lick of evidence,” see #2. I’ve put in my time. I put A LOT of evidence out there. I don’t blame you if you didn’t pay attention (most regular readers probably didn’t, either), but claiming that I didn’t perform due diligence in that regard is just wrong.

So how about we just take each other’s statements in good faith, but also with a grain of salt? If I see something that’s obviously wrong, I’ll call it out, and you do the same. If I say something that seems incredible, feel free to say so. You might actually be surprised to learn something new, or I might learn that I’m mistaken. Either way we both win by learning more about the world. But starting from the position that I’m full of sh*t and must cite some peer-reviewed study every time I point something out about family law is just counterproductive and not at all in the spirit of mutually informative discussion.

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

You could have put all that effort into defending why you aren’t posting links into actually posting at least one link. Especially since you’ve read so much on it, you could at least name a book or website or paper or something or someone that backups your claims.

Again, Kirby has posted several links to websites that backup their* claim. You have posted none; and you cannot say you don’t want to because you do it all day as an excuse because it isn’t, especially since there appears to be numerous sources on the subject. It seems to me that you could easily backup your claims by googling one of those many sources and posting it.

And, no, that doesn’t mean we can just easily look it up as well, because that’s not how proof works; the burden of proof is on you as you’re the one who is bringing up all this uncited data. Besides it’s just common courtesy to reciprocate the links Kirby has provided for you by providing some links back.

*I don’t know your pronouns. D:

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

I don’t recall ever saying you were full of shit; in fact I specifically said I didn’t think you were lying. I don’t understand why you are so offended at being asked to back up your arguments. Everyone else here does this, you’re not special and you’re not being singled out. You do understand that I don’t know you, I don’t know your motives, and frankly, your word is really not good enough. People in general, and people who come to this blog to voice disagreement especially, have a tendency to use anecdotal evidence, to use single instances rather than looking at the big picture, to manipulate, to employ unreasonable tactics, to twist and deny their own words. You yourself have done that last in this very thread. Trust is earned, it’s not granted blindly. Your refusal to do this very basic thing, as I have said, makes it seem like you don’t really want to engage in discussion.

Are you so very arrogant that you won’t allow the possibility that your interpretation is biased, or even that you misunderstood something you’ve studied in the past? Are you so sure of yourself? One of the things that linking to your information allows is for others to look at it, and maybe point out how it could be interpreted differently than you are interpreting it.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
5 years ago

It’s going to be up to bureaucrats to deal with this, and I suspect that they are already fully aware that taking more than 20% of pretax income actually lowers collections.

Yeah, god forbid someone should have to fork over 20% of their income to raise their own goddamn child.

What percent to you think custodial parents are spending on the kids?

I hope so for the sake of the Walter Scotts of this country. And their children, too.

Fuck you. Like you actually give a fuck about Scott or his kids.

That’s my last word on these “citations” demands. You doubt me? Then you do the research, and, “citations please.”

Is that how you plan to convince government officials and win people to your cause? By talking about the years you’ve studied and then telling them to do the same just to see if you’re right or not? I’m sure that’ll be very effective.

Not too good for it at all. Research is real, honest-to-goodness work. I did it for years in another job, and my eyes have paid a price for it. You aren’t going to pay me for it, so it’s an unreasonable demand. It’s like saying “since you said you know plumbing, then come over and fix my kitchen sink to prove it.”

If you’re going to demand that public policy be based on your knowledge of plumbing, then yeah, you might have to demonstrate it a bit.

If you don’t think I’m trustworthy, fine. I think I’m honest, and I can’t recall trying to deceive people about these matters ever. Maybe I’ve been wrong here and there. Wouldn’t surprise me — it’s statistically all but certain. But if I have to prove I’m right every time that’s too much to ask.

I just did that thing where you laugh so suddenly and loudly that it startles the cat awake. This is too much!

If I didn’t want a discussion, I wouldn’t waste my time.

Since the terms of your “discussion” require people to take your every claim on faith and assume you are always correct, it wouldn’t be so much a “discussion” as a general nod-along.

If I say something that seems incredible, feel free to say so.

Pretty sure that’s how the conversation ended up where it is in the first place. Why should people bother to speak up if you’re not going to say anything but “I know it’s true because of my learnings”?

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Price,
We didn’t come to you. You came to us. You made claims that are contrary to what everyone else knows about this subject. No, you don’t have to post links that back you up. But if you want us to believe you, you do.

I find it incredibly suspicious that you claim to have done so much research and you seem to care about this issue so much but you don’t have links saved in your bookmarks you can quickly pull up. Or, if you Google something a few times it will start filling in the search terms itself and give you the links you’ve clicked on before in the first page. At the very least, you should have some names of studies, books or news articles memorized.

Your stubborn insistence on not backing your claims suggests that either you’re a liar or you’re arrogant and entitled. You aren’t a special snowflake. The rules of debate don’t cave under the weight of your mighty manlogic. Why would any of us trust you?

And as Emilygoddess said, why is paying 20% of your income excessive? Kids are expensive. Especially in a right wing country like the US in which wages are low and state services are paltry. Maybe you should lobby for affordable healthcare, college tuition and childcare instead of blaming feminist strawmen for problems we didn’t create.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@Jackie:

“He” is fine. 🙂

@Price:

Yeah, I understand. But all I can say is that I’ve already put an enormous amount of time into studying this issue.

So you say.

I’ve read an enormous amount of data about it, and am confident enough that I don’t feel the need to go back and look it up in order to make statements, just as you don’t need to use a dictionary to speak English or (presumably) a manual to do your job every day.

So you say.

I have a lot of faith in my knowledge of this subject.

We don’t have that same faith in your knowlege. We currently don’t share your beliefs. Do you want to try to convince us? Or do you just want to speak at us?

Additionally, I’ve already made a whole lot of of citations. Hundreds if not thousands of them.

Even if every character you’ve written here in the last few days were a different citation link, you probably wouldn’t have reached hundreds of thousands. Do you not understand what we mean by citations, or are you willfully misinterpreting us?

I put A LOT of evidence out there.

Not in front of us, you haven’t. Not in the past couple days. How about sharing?

I don’t blame you if you didn’t pay attention (most regular readers probably didn’t, either), but claiming that I didn’t perform due diligence in that regard is just wrong.

We aren’t talking about the process that went into forming your views. We’re talking about evidence that would convince us of your position. Sorry, we just can’t take your word for it when you’ve said so many clearly unlikely/untrue things.

If I see something that’s obviously wrong, I’ll call it out, and you do the same. If I say something that seems incredible, feel free to say so.

I have. In fact, those things are the exact things that I’ve been asking for citations about. So far your response has been to double-down, not actually provide any evidence. I’m not going to believe some incredible (to me) statement if you just repeat it.

But starting from the position that I’m full of sh*t and must cite some peer-reviewed study every time I point something out about family law is just counterproductive and not at all in the spirit of mutually informative discussion.

If it seems like I’m doubting everything you’re saying, it’s simply because you’re making so many bizarre claims. Don’t blame me for your own argument style. How about giving me a little credit as well and don’t assume I’m being unreasonable in my doubt, hmm?

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

I’ve been doing that this whole time. If I was taking your statements in bad faith, I wouldn’t even be asking for evidence; I’d just dismiss you entirely. Asking for evidence IS taking your statements with a grain of salt.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

I think this might be the first time I’ve ever talked to someone who found the idea of backing up their arguments and providing evidence personally offensive.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

So, haven’t caught up on the thread, because reading Price’s last response and one line made me just… what?

Dude, where are these hundred if not thousands of citations of which you speak?

You do know having a citation and making a statement are two completely different things. You are aware of that, right?

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Also, it befuddles me how often people make the mistake of thinking citations are just ‘proof’ of knowing things.

They aren’t. They’re jumping points for other people to read more about the subject and learn things beyond what you summarized for them. They’re signposts for “look at this cool rabbit hole!” They’re a sign of respect for the giants whose shoulder’s you’re standing on, letting the world know that what you’ve figured out came from these people’s dedication.

Likewise, newspaper articles are rarely “data”.

Data is the raw numbers that someone painstakingly collected, but those people who deserve to be cited.

Saying “I’m not going to acknowledge the people who did this hard work because I’m a self proclaimed expert” is…

… PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS.

**grumble grumble**

I HAVE FEELINGS ON THIS.

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

@Kirby

Okay! Just making sure. 😀

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.

Citations are you showing where you got your facts. You just state a bunch of statistics without any citations at all.

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?

Or are you stating that you want all these European standards at once, which actually would be a pretty sweet deal. I like your idea. You should try to push that into law. Weekly checks until the kid is 21 and the custodial parent doesn’t have to work until the child enters school. Great ideas, Bill, great ideas.