"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"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.

I agree with that. It's one or the other--and I'd just as soon get rid of
the other!! It's too easy to divorce with the "independent model." It's
like choosing a new favorite breakfast cereal--out with the old spouse, in
with the new.

But what I have been saying is, under Drew's model (see original post),
there has got to be some way for a spouse who has stayed at home and done
their end of the deal for all those years (and it has to be long term--not
just a couple of years) to not drop down to poverty level just because the
marriage breaks up. How many marriages would even fall into that category
these days?