Monday, October 31, 2011
I'm going to be a single mom at 20 years old and I need someone to make me feel better about the following:
1) Getting knocked up at 20
2) Having a baby when my boyfriend and I had no money and clearly were not ready for a child financially or in our relationship
3) Getting knocked up at 20
4) Forcing my boyfriend to be a dad when he was not ready to be one
5) Getting knocked up at 20
6) Having a baby just because I wanted one and for no other reason
7) Ignoring my boyfriend/husband
8) Being selfish
9) Getting knocked up at 20
10) Pushing away my boyfriend when he clearly cares about me and his child
11) Insuring my child will never know his father but through once-a-month court-ordered "visitation"
12) Making sure my child knows mom is the MOST important thing in the world and that most men are immature and selfish!!
13) Ensuring my boyfriend will never have his own family and be nothing but my wage slave
Thanks Y'all. Thanks for being so SUPPORTIVE!
Yes, its a free country. Yes, women and men may do as they please (unless you step into a legal trap a special interest group has setup, such as divorce). But this is just plain pathetic. A lingere football league? Do these women have no better alternative in their life? They run around the field in their underwear with pads and helmets on and they tackle each other? This is a new low. This is a notch below mud wrestling. I mean, give me a break. Don't they feel like a piece of meat in those clothes? And then they run around the field playing REAL football; a game where you're not "down" or "out" until you go out of bounds or someone knocks you forcibly to the ground with all possible malice and viciousness.
If girls want to play football, fine. If they want their own league, fine.
But why can't they wear real uniforms that their private parts don't hang out of? Is that not just a TAD indiscreet? I mean, have some class people. Some of these women are very good athletes. They could wear something sexy if the league thought it could help sell tickets - but lingere? On a football field? Have you seen some of the positions football players get in? Would you want to do that in your underwear? Yeah. Me neither.
If you've ever wondered why the Middle East and/or muslim nations of the world are terrified of westernization, look no further. One look at a lingere football league and you've got to conclude whatever freedom means to a nation, this is right up there with public pole dancing. Its a public spectacle. Its sad and demeaning.
Let's move on.
Friday, October 28, 2011
The answer? That's easy of course. It goes to my 10 year-past ex-girlfriend. Its palimony. You can't give alimony to someone you were never married to.
Is this right?
Give me a fucking break.
Of course not. If it were, then you would all be happy to have her PAY ME palimony to the tune of a grand a month if I had custody of our son. Can you picture a grown man receiving $1k a month from his ex-girlfriend for .... "expenses" related to a child!?!?! No. No one can. So this rule is just for ladies. Its absurd and just plain financial rape, pure and simple.
My ex actually has a slightly more just view than the state. How messed up is that?
Her view is that I take my son two days a week (plus Sat.), so on those days I'm responsible for any care for him. Reasonable, really. But then that suggests, again, I'm paying support for my son for 5 days per week. That's $1k/week for 20 days care, or $50/day. For one 10 year old boy? $50/day? He doesn't eat 50 dollars a WEEK in food and water! For a 7 day week that's $350 dollars. Could you take 350 PER WEEK out of your paycheck dear reader and still live ANY kind of lifestyle!?!?!?
The state's view is that aftercare is some kind of magical "extra" expense not covered by child support. Again, THEN WHAT DOES CHILD SUPPORT COVER?!?!?! None of my friends, not even the women understand this. AT ALL. They keep asking me over and over again: what exactly are you paying for? I tell them my ex-girlfriend from 10 years ago. They blink at me while the transmission wheels in their head roar like a car in neutral with the gas pedal to the floor.
I blink back.
So the state says activities, out of pocket medical expense and daycare are all split. Um, I pay ALL of my son's ONE activity (his mother says she's REALLY thinking HARD about signing him up for music lessons), and I pay ALL of his health insurance which happens every month and goes up quarterly, whether he has a medical problem or not. I'd squeal in delight like a pig if she paid all his medical insurance and I paid ALL of the costs for whatever the insurance didn't pick up - I'd be saving thousands a year. My ex doesn't do math like that - on a net basis, that is. Neither does the state of Massachusetts. Health insurance for my son is another thing I pay that doesn't count; I have to pay half of all medical expenses not covered by the insurance. Daycare should be covered by my child support - ITS SUPPORT-FOR-THE-CHILD. But the state puts in on a separate line on the form and says FUCK YOU, its extra. My remedy? Nothing. I get butt-reamed. That's all.
Next the Dept. of Revenue fucks me. You see child support rates were indiscriminately and magically raised, out of the blue 2 years ago. So my ex told them I'm rich (HOW could I be?), based on nothing but a suspicion that I was not poor. So now the DOR will go through my entire financial life from top to bottom and claim since my salary is higher and they are now "allowed" by the KILLER state of MA to take more of my money, then they will. My child support could nearly double. What does it go to? Not even after-school day care.
As my own mother said: This is the point when most men just LEAVE.
My poor son.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
VAWA Reauthorization Bill Worse Than Existing LawOctober 21st, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has been drafted by Senator Pat Leahy’s, (D-Vt.) Senate Judiciary Committee. The organization Stop Abusive and Violent Environments was kind enough to send me a copy and it looks much the same as what we’ve had since VAWA’s inception. What changes the bill does make are for the worse.
Now, as many readers are aware, that’s not because people haven’t tried to educate the senators on the committee about the many flaws in VAWA. Indeed, less than two months ago, the committee held hearings at which many people testified about things like the entire lack of accountability for funds, the fact that its mandatory arrest provisions likely make domestic violence more dangerous not less and the fact that restraining orders don’t protect people who are actually in danger but serve as a weapon in the hands of those who aren’t.
For that matter, S.A.V.E. has lobbied members of Congress about all those things. It’s also tried to get the language of VAWA to be made gender-neutral and to include sanctions for false allegations that clog up courts and DV shelters.
So what did Leahy come up with? A proposed bill that would retain all the bad policies of the existing bill and actually make them worse, that’s what. For example, right there on page 69 of the 125-page bill, is the requirement that colleges and universities adopt the standard of proof in sexual assault cases foisted on them by the Department of Education - preponderance of evidence, the lowest standard in American jurisprudence.
Up to now, that requirement has been nothing more than a rule put in place by a single attorney in the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. As such, it could be overturned by order of her immediate superior. Under Leahy’s bill, it would become the law of the land.
It’s not as if S.A.V.E. hasn’t gotten a lot of good feedback on its campaign to make federal law regarding domestic violence sane, effective and fair. Indeed, the congressional staff members they talk to welcome their input and honestly consider what they’re saying.
It’s also true that Republican members of the Judiciary Committee like Charles Grassley, (R- Ia.) are rightly concerned about spending half a billion dollars on a program for which there are no safeguards on how the money’s spent. Given that the most recent audit of 22 recipients of the federal largesse coming to them via VAWA found serious deficiencies in 21, Grassley’s got a point.
But it’s a point lost on Leahy who, in this era of never-before-seen federal deficits, can’t think of a reason to make recipients of VAWA money explain what they’re doing with the money and why. Amazing.
But for now, there’s a slight hitch in Leahy’s git-along. He clearly drafted the proposed reauthorization of VAWA without the assistance of common sense, the concept of fairness or much concern about the taxpayer’s money. That’s clear enough from the bill he’s proposing. But he also drafted the a bill without any input from his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.
And that is where S.A.V.E. wants to attack this wasteful, ineffective and misandric bill. So S.A.V.E. wants you to contact your senator and urge him/her to reject this bill in favor of a more sensible bill that corrects the current law’s many shortcomings. To do that, just dial 1-202-224-3121.
More importantly, contact the Senate Judiciary Committee members directly and demand that they stop this dreadful bill and replace it with one that will deal effectively with DV as it’s understood by the science on the problem.
Here’s the contact information for the Senate Judiciary Committee. From there you can easily contact individual members.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Two women discuss what they CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE A GODDAMN CLUE ABOUT. Which wouldn't be quite so disgusting to read IF THEY ADMITTED THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE.
But they get around the fact that they are clueless: they have a celebrity couple to use as a model: Tom Brady and Gisele Budchen.
Fabulous idea ladies. I mean, a regular, every-day-Joe MUST have the same feelings, resources, and decisions as a multimillion dollar NFL superstar married to an international supermodel. That makes just so much sense.
I mean, could every-day-Joe REALLY be any different!?!??!
I am reeling emotionally from what appears to be the end of what could have been a great relationship.
I met this great guy, Kenneth, six months ago. A mutual friend set us up. I was attracted to him instantly. None of that, "Should I go out on a second or third date to see if there's chemistry?" There was chemistry for both us. I'm in my mid-30s. He just turned 40.
We started dating and things were going very well. He was busy with his job (which involves a lot of travel) so we didn't see each other much. He told me up front that he was looking to date and to get serious but that his job took priority. I've always been attracted to men with unusual jobs. I wasn't fazed by his career at all.
About a month ago, 10 days went by without a phone call or email from Kenneth. I finally sent him an email asking if things were okay. I was really anxious when I didn't immediately hear back from him. He was always good about emailing me frequently.
Well, I heard back from him a few days later and it wasn't anything I had ever expected. He said he had just found out a week ago that a girl he had slept with a month before meeting me was pregnant with his child -- and keeping the baby. What's worse is that she waited months to tell him, so (in her words, he says) he wouldn't pressure her into terminating the pregnancy.
I was sick at this news, and then sicker when he told me he had his "hands full" and couldn't see me anymore. One expects to get dumped from time to time but not like this.
(As an aside, I know he didn't cheat on me. After our first date he was out of the country for weeks.)
While I get that Kenneth has had a huge life change, I can't help but feel like I still have a place his life and him in mine. Am I crazy to think this? It was unfair of him to shut me out. Our budding relationship was full of great chemistry, laughter, deep conversation. In other words, it felt right to me.
I need to know: Can our relationship recover? He is going to be a new father in a few months with a woman he basically barely knows. Where do I fit in? Do I fit in? If I don't fit in, how does one recover from a baby mama drama such as this? Am I kidding myself? Either way, what do I now?
– This Worked Out for Gisele, Right?, Wrentham
A: It worked out for Gisele, TWOFGR, because Tom Brady said to her (and I'm guessing here), "Gi Gi, I just found out that my ex is having my child. But I've fallen in love with you and I hope that you don't go anywhere. Despite this big life change and my hectic schedule as a professional athlete, I'd like to continue this relationship."
Your guy didn't say that to you. He didn't ask you to consider sticking around. (And I'm assuming that you volunteered, right?)
I know you don't want to hear this, but it's probably best that he walked away. Yes, he's great and there was chemistry, but do you really want to stay in a relationship with someone who'll put you third? The baby will become his new priority. Then the job. Then ... eventually ... you. Can you commit to that kind of life after just a few months of dating?
If Gisele, Tom, and Bridget were on Love Letters today, they'd probably tell you that while it all worked out for them, it hasn't always been easy. I'm sure they'd tell you that their success as a family depends on the empathy, patience, and responsibility of three busy adults who want to do right by their partners and children. Right now, you're the only one in your triangle who wants this to work for everyone.
Kenneth didn't come to you with his news to have a respectful discussion. He waited 10 days while you stewed and then made all of the decisions himself. Gisele wouldn't put up with that. You can start getting over this drama by allowing yourself to be ticked off.
Readers? Should she tell him that she wants to try this? Should that request come from him? Is this worth pursuing? What's happening here?
I'll chime in. Its what I do.
Um, this man just had his life explode in his face. He may have contacted a lawyer or done a Google search and learned 40% of his earnings JUST VANISHED as it is all going to go to his ex thanks to psycho-sponsored child support laws. A woman he doesn't want to be with BECAUSE SHE IS HIS EX. He wasn't planning to be a dad (and just STFU with any comments about how a man should plan on being a dad whenever he has sex. Does a woman? Please. Sex these days is far from any kind of promise). But now he is a dad. He is a dad against his will. Even worse, his ex KNEW he didn't want to be a dad and so she INTENTIONALLY HID his OWN CHILD from him because she didn't want to be "pressured" into not having the child. Wow, that's nice and selfish of her! She's bringing a child into the world against his father's wishes, but she tells the father: "I'm having your baby, tough shit if you're not ready." THANKS LADY! How would you like it if someone gave you a baby YOU DID NOT WANT and said "Haha. Fuck you!" How would you like it if you could do NOTHING ABOUT IT! I bet you'd have some kind of WTF-mid-life crisis, eh! But the fact that this guy pulled the emergency stop cord and told his new girlfriend basically "I can't meet your needs or give you anything, my life just blew the fuck up in my face and all my life plans are now dead," proved to be too much too swallow?
And the Love Doctor's advice:
"Kenneth didn't come to you with his news to have a respectful discussion."
Kenneth is wondering how the fuck the world just ended and he wound up in Hell. And you want to call down to him in Hell and ask him why he's being impolite? The new girlfriend is reeling? WELL LET'S ALL CRY ON HER BEHALF! New girlfriend's life didn't just end, KENNETH'S DID.
FUCK YOU new girlfriend. What did you expect? That Superman here would just tell you not to worry and that he'll TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING? Well this guy ain't superman. He just had his guts ripped out. Ever consider he wants to care for his new baby, but is conflicted by the fact that he HATES the baby's mother right now? And that those feelings of resentment may be projected onto his child? Or that he hates himself for even making this situation possible? And in the midst of all that he's supposed to ask YOU how YOU feel? Sorry sweetie, THERE ISN'T ANY ROOM FOR YOU IN THIS EQUATION. He may be having an identity crisis combined with 50 other feelings he's never even witnessed on t.v.. The guy's head is daily wrapped in C-4 explosive and you want him to just OPEN UP to you and talk about everything? YOU BARELY EVEN KNOW EACH OTHER!
Yeah, it sucks to get rejected. But he didn't reject you for life. Just for right now. And another thing: he's not a woman - he'll need 6 months or more to deal with what's happening. And that means he has ZERO to offer you. Breaking up with you was a FAVOR. He couldn't do anything for you so he hit "EJECT." What did you expect him to do? Deal with it all in 2 days and then propose to you? Jesus, he's probably even considering getting back together with his baby's mom BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT HIS CHILD TO GROW UP IN A BROKEN FAMILY. He has to act ON BEHALF OF A CHILD NOW. He has responsibilities GREATER THAN HIMSELF.
GET IT, DEAD-HEAD?
But 10 points to Meredith and moronic girlfriend for their sensitivity and TOTAL LACK of effort to see his side of things. Really nice touch using the gutter phrase "Baby momma drama." I'm sure Kenneth really wants to be associated with that kind of trash. Thanks to the TOTAL lack of responsibility these days, an otherwise conservative and family-oriented man can have sex but ONCE - and be forced into fatherhood and lose half his income. You see that shit happening to WOMEN? Nope. But let's act sympathetic when they become IMPATIENT when it happens to a man.
What total fucking imbeciles.
Monday, October 17, 2011
My ex says I am "able to pay more money and so I should." In probably nowhere else on planet earth, besides the IRS, the alleys of China, and perhaps prisons in Russia is someone forced to pay more simply because, through hard work, they've managed to make a bit more money (for themselves, oh dear!).
TELL ME SOMETHING DEAR READER.
The money I pay my ex is for my son... right? That's what we're all told. So two private people are coming to an agreement as the law guarantees white trash like my ex a portion of my income.
WHAT DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE HAVE TO DO WITH THAT?!!?!??!
They are just some state agency. And remember dear reader, some state rep's brother-in-law, er, official over at that department making 50k a year and up, is sitting at a desk writing these letters and/or sending them out, to men like me.
To what end!?!?!?
To their own.
The state collects federal dollars by being the middleman between me and my ex and keeping "child support" standards outrageously high.
Truth, Justice, Equality, Reason: THEY ARE ALL A SAD PUNCH LINE.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MIDDLEMAN-STATE COLLECTING FROM "DEADBEAT" DADS AS MUCH AS THEY CAN. (Label the "villains" to build sympathy and than RAPE THEM!)
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Have you seen Occupy Wall Street?!?!!? They're telling you all you need to know:
JUST. FOLLOW. THE. MONEY.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Much like viewers are often shown sex-crazed women as "powerful and in control," and women 10-years-single as "career mavens who just can't find a high-quality guy."
“Tonight, CBS premieres How To Be A Gentleman, a brainless buddy comedy presenting a dichotomy in which men can be either delicate, ineffectual, sexless weaklings or ill-mannered but physically powerful meatheads.”–NPR’s Linda Holmes
Braver men than I have quailed at the thought of an essay on masculinity brought to us by National Public Radio. But here one is, and it’s nothing short of excellent (NPR, 10/1/11).
The writer is Linda Holmes and her subject is less masculinity per se than its depiction in popular culture, specifically television. To say that Holmes is unhappy with the portrayal of men in the current season of sitcoms is to understate the matter considerably. She writes with a combination of anger, dismay and perplexity.
Now, I must say that popular culture has little interest for me, so I’m far from an expert on TV sitcoms, but over many years I’ve developed a strong sense of certain messages about men and masculinity that pop culture has trafficked in. I, like Holmes, am not happy with those.
Still, I’ve always thought that feminism went (goes) way overboard in its sensitivity to cultural messages. There was a time that feminism asked us to believe that we were all virtual slaves to however our sex was displayed on TV, the movies, magazines, etc. Pop culture surely has some impact on how we see and understand ourselves. Just as surely, every man comes to terms with being a member of his sex; every woman does too. Essentially none of us resembles Rambo or Angelina Jolie and at some point early in life it ceases to matter.
So what Holmes writes about has some importance, but I can’t say just how much.
That said, it’s entirely worth noting that depictions of masculinity on television bear no resemblance to actual men. Of course what Holmes is dealing with are men in sitcoms, so they’re not necessarily meant to. But face it, there’s a message inside the incessant drumbeat of denigration of men.
Tonight, CBS premieres How To Be A Gentleman, a brainless buddy comedy presenting a dichotomy in which men can be either delicate, ineffectual, sexless weaklings or ill-mannered but physically powerful meatheads. Says this show — over and over, in both its marketing and in its actual dialogue — there are gentlemen, and there are real men, and each might need to be a little more like the other.
Yes, yes, it’s a sitcom, and caricatures are common, and on its own, this wouldn’t make much of an impression. But this is not just any season. It’s a season that also brings Tim Allen whining about what ever happened to “real men” in Last Man Standing, three guys lost in a universe of “pomegranate body wash” in Man Up, and — sometime in midseason, unless the universe blissfully swallows us all before then — two men in drag in Work It trying to overcome the entirely female-driven economy in which they literally cannot support themselves without dressing as women.
Yes, the question burning on the lips of TV producers from L.A. to Burbank is “whatever happened to ‘real men’?” Interestingly, Holmes has the answer.
Where, on television, are the men who both like football and remember birthdays? Where are the men who can have a highly insightful drink-and-talk with friends? Where are the men who are great dads, great husbands, great boyfriends? Where are the men who are dedicated to important jobs? Where are the men who aren’t seeking reassurance about what it means to be men? Where are, in short, all the men I rely on in my day-to-day life?
Bingo. Holmes is smart enough to realize that ‘real men’ are all around her in her everyday life, just not on television. That means that, far more than the producers of those shows, Holmes has the ability to look around her and see what’s there. It’s an ability that’s surprisingly absent in many people. The willingness to mentally cram reality into scripted myth is as common as dirt and not surprisingly distorts reality for those who do it.
And it’s not like the producers of these shows are without their political/social agendas. Holmes gets it right when she uses the word “hectoring” to describe the programs’ sense of driving home a message they’re sure we all need to learn.
But there is something about this narrative hectoring about men not understanding manhood that seems particularly brutal in that it specifically attacks them for emotional ineptitude while simultaneously attacking them for having emotions. Men who are emotionally reactive (like Hornsby’s character here) are weak; men who are emotionally inert (like the Man Up guys) are clueless. In both cases, women don’t want to have sex with them, even if they’re married to them.
In short, a man can be either of two things - Rambo or Mr. Rogers - but whatever his personal bent, he’s wrong and women are right to dislike him. It’s a limited and not very inviting world.
And it is that very ‘hectoring’ quality that makes me care at all. As I said, most people navigate the shoals of masculinity and femininity very well. They do that in part by ignoring stereotypes peddled by TV shows. But I get the sense that the purveyors of popular culture won’t stop until we’ve absorbed their message, until they’ve actually had their perverse effect on people’s views of themselves and their sex.
I think the whole matter becomes important, to the extent it does, because the message of universal masculine deficiency doesn’t stand alone on television between the hours of 7 and 10 PM. It taps into a larger social message that’s anything but recent in provenance.
Over 40 years ago, radical feminists saw that characterizing men in particular ways could pay big dividends. Specifically, if men could be seen to be stupid, brutish louts, it would be far easier to marginalize them in society generally, imprison them, divorce them, take their children, etc. After all, a man without feelings and with Rambo’s penchant for violence is good as part of the armed services (i.e. OK to be killed or maimed in battle), but stateside, we’re all better off if he’s in prison. Failing that, he should be the subject of a TRO and kept strictly away from women and children.
Whatever may be said of a few silly sitcoms, most of which won’t last the season, the feminist view of men has gotten plenty of traction over the years. So it’s no accident that what’s now almost universally referred to as a “real man” is in fact only that feminist caricature of us.
Over the millennia, far more sensible societies than ours have realized that men and women come in an astonishing variety of packages, all of them ‘real.’ They’ve been able to look at Catherine the Great of Russia and Mary mother of Jesus and notice that both were women, however radically different. In the same way, the Buddha was a man as surely as Julius Caesar, Einstein and Oscar Wilde, to which I say “VIVE LA DIFFÉRENCE!”
We took a wrong turn 40 years ago in agreeing to the feminist view of men and masculinity. We haven’t recovered yet, and TV sitcoms aren’t helping. To her credit, Linda Holmes is.
Monday, October 10, 2011
These are the three things that the Oklahoma Department of Human Services is improving "while lowering costs [to the state]."
Wow. Well done, I guess. IBM sold them some software and made some money. But as any economist will ask you: "WHERE IS THE END DEMAND FOR THIS "SERVICE COMING FROM." That is, WHO is paying for these state "services?!?!" The taxpayer? The taxpayer in poor old OKLAHOMA probably can't do it. In a state of 3.8 million people, or less than the city of Boston, MA, Oklahoma, grand total (state and local level) had 21 billion in revenue and 19 billion in debt. Yeah, that's billion with a 'B'. That means their debt, as a percentage of revenue (actual cash that they collect in taxes) is 90%. They could wipe out a whole year's worth of revenue just to pay down their debt to zero. http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The state isn't exactly rich.
So why are they spending millions on IBM software for "Child support, child services and family support?" Maybe its because the state makes good money off those "services." Especially child support. The more it collects in child support, the more money it can receive from the Federal government in child support "reimbursement."
From Reason Magazine:
With the federal government paying 66 percent of collection costs, plus incentives that amount to 6 percent to 10 percent of all the money the state dragoons from absent dads, many states manage to turn child support collection into a cash cow, generating millions that they can use for any other government function they want.
1995 figures show state governments made $431 million in profit off of running their state offices of child support. Taxpayers are still overall losers, though; the feds spent $1.3 billion on the program in the same year.
The Feds (taxpayers) pay the state for collecting money from dads and the state makes money off it, in fact, is given every incentive to COLLECT - from anyone they can slap the label "dad" on. They don't even care if he is the child's father. Hell, Michigan has more than one man supporting the same child. Having just one child by a upper-middle class man in Massachusetts can net a woman $1,800 dollars a month OR MORE in "child support." (what is the child doing, training to pole vault on Neptune?)
So therefore the state, after wiping the drool away from the corner of its bloodthirsty mouth, starts collecting names, addresses, employment information and phone numbers for any man who's unlucky enough to sleep with a woman who was feeling extra-maternal that day, or to be confused for the guy who did. Now the state needs to modernize and streamline their data usage so that they can MAXIMIZE THE STEALING OF MONEY FROM MEN. Its not the state's money. Its not the money of someone's ex-girlfriend or one-night stand. The men made the money from hard work and employment, the state steals it on a the-ends-justify-the-means argument, gives a piece to the man's "accuser" (who may or may not have named the right father of her child) and keeps the rest of the money for itself. Now the state wants to auto-process this scam like a high-end warehouse business and WATCH the FEDERAL TAXPAYER MONEY ROLL ON IN, DADDY-O!
Its not their money. But what the fuck do they care. The woman who felt lonely some random night and went out and had sex of her own free will with a consenting adult man; a man who had NO REASON TO THINK HE WAS STARTING A FAMILY WITH A WOMAN HE WAS NOT MARRIED TO deserves that money, doesn't she? I mean.... SHE wanted children. The fact that he didn't DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
Further, ask yourself why, 50 years ago, we did not NEED thousands of state workers collecting child support from unsuspecting men and massive state agencies requiring billions of dollars to administer "family services."
MAYBE IT WAS BECAUSE WOMEN DIDN'T DARE HAVE KIDS OUT OF WEDLOCK WITH MEN THEY DIDN'T MARRY AND MEN WERE ONLY EXPECTED TO PAY FOR THE FAMILIES THEY CHOSE TO HAVE WITH WOMEN THEY CHOSE TO MARRY.
Note bolded portions.
CHOWCHILLA, Calif.—A California woman who killed her newlywed husband and chopped and cooked his body parts over Thanksgiving weekend in 1991 was denied her second bid for parole Wednesday.
Parole commissioners rejected Omaima Nelson's request for freedom following a five-and-half-hour hearing at the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, where she has been serving a life sentence.
Then-23-year-old Nelson was convicted of murdering her 56-year-old husband William Nelson in a grotesque killing that authorities likened to the fictional slayings of Hannibal Lecter, the cannibalistic character in "Silence of the Lambs."
Nelson, now 43, represented herself at the hearing and argued that she should be paroled because she has become a changed person and she wanted "to live the good life God meant." She claimed she was sorry, though she continued to say she killed in self-defense.
But the two-person panel of the state Board of Parole found that Nelson, an Egyptian-born former model and nanny, continued to be a risk to society. Commissioners said she had not accepted full responsibility for the Orange County slaying, nor completed educational or vocational programs while incarcerated that would help her lead a productive life outside prison.
Nelson was "blaming anybody but herself," deputy commissioner Robert Barese said at the hearing.
Commissioners cited Nelson's criminal history, including shoplifting, auto theft and assault with a firearm, and her failure to abide by prison rules, including violations for fighting, battering on a staff member, hiding contraband, stealing, failure to comply with instructions and arguing.
They also found that Nelson had shown a pattern of exchanging sex with older men for money and goods, which in the past had led to violence.
William's daughter Margaret Nelson -- who was 15 at the time of the murder -- gave a long, tearful speech in which she said her father's murder meant he couldn't attend her wedding or meet her 8-week-old daughter.
"I don't have the language to explain the pain of my father not being there," the victim's daughter said.
Nelson will not be eligible to seek parole again for 15 years -- the maximum period she can be held without another hearing, the commissioners said. Nelson sat silently as her plea for parole was rejected.
Randy Pawloski, a senior deputy district attorney in Orange County who prosecuted the case and argued against her release, said he was glad Nelson was denied freedom, because "we've always thought this is an egregious case... and she's a danger to society."