"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...


Now, by men keeping the assets they earned, do you mean that the women
should be booted out of the house they were buying because the man's
earned
money made the payments? No, I don't think so. Because each did their
share through mutually agreed upon roles that they assumed in the
marriage.

Here is what I am saying. There are two types of marriage arrangements.
The first is the one you have cited in this thread with me and elsewhere
with Max. That marriage arrangement is based on DEPENDENCE with each party
depending on the other for accomplishing a role. This was the pre-women's
movement marriage model but some couples still believe this is a sound basis
for a marriage.

The post-women's movement marriage model, and the one supported by the
family law changes that have occurred since the 60's, is based on
INDEPENDENCE. The parties have decided they will live independent of each
other with separate careers, separate checking accounts, separate (fill in
the blanks). This second marriage model has weakened marriage and created a
dramatically increased divorce rate. Our laws support the decline of
marriage by giving women government sponsored incentive advantages they did
not have before in the dependent marriage model.

What I am objecting to (and I believe Max is objecting to as well) is the
thought process that couples should be able to choose between the dependent
or independent marriage model for their marriage, yet if the marriage fails
the women should get the full force of legal protections provided for in the
law for the newer independent marriage model PLUS the more traditional
dependence model marriage protections. My objection is women shouldn't have
it both ways when they exit a marriage.