"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
Father Drew scribbled:
Wooaa there tiger. I would lighten up on TeacherMama a bit. I
consider her disagreement on alimony small potatoes when you consider
she carrys a viewpoint of equal rights in family court, which makes
her one of the good guys. The thread has gotten messy, so it's
possible she didn't get your question, not that she is ignoring it.
I know I missed it the 1st time around.

Ahh no, I find that when 'push comes to shove' many of the women that
post here claiming to be 'supportive' of men and against the way they
are treated by the system, disagree (often vehemently) on the key issues
that lead to men being treated the way they are....
Things like having sex is choosing to have a child for men; Men having
the right to determine by DNA testing, that their children ARE their
children; That men should still have to pay CS when they find that a
child they thought was theirs isn't theirs; The argument justifying
'alimony' for SAH's, etc, etc, etc....

Just to make sure things are absolutely clear, Max, I have NEVER said that
choosing to have sex is the same as choosing to have a child. I have ALWAYS
that DNA should be used to determine paternity whenever either party wants
it. IDO NOT believe that ANY person should pay child support for a child
that is not theirs. And I do not appreciate your above statement.

I DO believe that, in a long-term marriage where both adults have agreed on
their roles within the marriage, that there must be an equitable division of
what they have built TOGETHER, by each fulfilling their agreed-upon roles.
I truly don't give a rat's tush whether it is alimony or not. He has the
high-paying job--let her have the house. She can sell it and use the money
to get through those first few rough years as she begins her trek up the job
ladder. And this would only be in cases of long-term marriages with a SAH
parent. How many of those do you think there are. And, again, this was a
question for Drew under his Solution to the current corrupt system.



It's why I often include the quote about the ' abstract rights of
men.....'

Are you basically asking her, "If the SAH should get compensation for
the choice of SAH, shouldn't the working parent should also get
compensation?".

Yes.

I have never spoken of compensation. The SAH does not get "compensated" for
being a maid, gardener, cook, etc. Because the SAH wasn't any of those
things! The SAH fulfilled thier agreed-upon role, the breadwinner theirs.
They should come out of the deal in somewhat equal positions.


If we must have alimony then there can be no argument for *NOT* having
financial compensation from the SAH to the working partner when the
divorce happens....

The working partner gave up the opportunity to spend *more* daily hands
on time with the children, and opted to work to provide for them. They
gave up that aspect of being a parent; it's the other side of the
argument that the SAH gives up their career; that they 'lose' having a
career and 'opportunities to fulfil themselves' outside of the SAH
lifestyle.

Let's just take this wonderful little statement of yours, Max. The working
earned the money and moved up the career ladder--he gets to keep that. The
SAH raised the children--she gets to keep them. If he wants time with
them--since they are hers--how about if he pays her money (which her earned)
to have time with what she has by right of the work she did in raising them.
You like that one? He did the money stuff--money is his. She did the kid
stuff--kids are hers.