Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Exactly, Kenneth.

I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.

The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic relations
law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups in
the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people, embracing
all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians,

Wow!! I was not aware that one-legged lesbians had an official
minority-status group of their own!! I learn something new every day!!

but certainly
EXCLUDING heterosexual men.

And that, unfortunately, is true.



So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via no-fault
divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man that
she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to stay
home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
made her do it.

That is why I only consider a long-term SAH situation to be one that,
perhaps, needs attention. And I don't believe, any more that you do, that
hubby made her to it.


And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
her husband.

If a SAH wants to break up the family to go find herself--let her do it at
her own expense. Unless there is something going on that would harm her or
the children, or unless hubby is boffing his new secretary. But, then ,
we're back to "fault", aren't we? And we jsut don't do that these days!!


And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for, there's
no
investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if she'd
stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But she
always
has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.

Geesh, Mel!! Where do you come up with this stuff!!

Only because "Friendly" will be leaving tomorrow...

Oh, Mel--you are in a mood today! You and I have debated this before and
never reached a common conclusion. Perhaps I have just run into a different
quality of SAH's than you have. I know it's different when you're the one
who's been burned.

I've already started educating my daughter. We were talking yesterday about
giving away the puppies. I told her that someday I might "give her away".
"But I'm not a puppy!!!". So I explained to her how things "used to be", when
a man would ask a girls father for her hand in marriage and the father would
walk her down the aisle in front of all and that was the symbolic act of
"giving her away" to the new husband. I explained to her that it USED TO BE
thought that women needed to be taken care of, just like puppies, and that they
went from being taken care of by thier fathers to being taken care of by thier
husbands. And I told her that things aren't like that for most people now -
that most people think women can take care of themselves. And I will make sure
that she is able to take care of herself. She will be able to depend on a man
IF SHE WANTS TO, but she will NOT grow up thinking it's something she has to
do....or has a right to do.

But she wants to be a Princess for Halloween this year. I told her I wasn't
going to start making a costume yet with so much time left for her to change
her mind...

Mel Gamble

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Back in the days when remaining in a marriage with a SAH wasn't such a
risky
business for the wage-earner, I might have agreed with you, Teach. But
now
your asking if I would allow a business pardner to talk me into making a
business decision that has a 50% chance of causing the business to fail
within
10 years. Sorry, I refuse. I will NOT be your SAH if I think I'm going
to
suffer such a financial set-back by doing so if YOU decide to leave. I
will
NOT put MY life in your hands that way. Any business pardner who would
can
look at bankruptcy as the cost of bad decision-making.

Cinderella can't afford her coach anymore - the government forced so many
changes in the design that the horses can no longer pull it, wouldn't be
allowed to if they could because of the pollution factor. And the fees to
license it are more than she can afford. Little girl dreams are a thing
of the
past. It's sad.....but true.

Mel Gamble

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Only as long as it remains true...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil #3 wrote:

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...
But, Kenneth, this wasn't about how things are today.
Supposed
SAH
moms
are
pretty well protected in the system today. This was about
Drew
setting
up
a
new system where custody is 50-50 by default, and each parent
supports
the
child from their own salary. The SAH in a long term marriage
would
be
at
a
distinct disadvantage in this situation, having been out of
the
workforce
for so many years. I was asking Drew what he would build into
his
system
in
this scenrario. I was most certainly not advocating for the
abuse
of
the
system by supposed stay-at-homes that we see today.

What is wrong with the SAH suffering the consequences of their
decision?
It
would shatter any knight-in-shining-armour fantasy of women, but
perhaps
that is a fantasy that should be shattered, as men have had
their
fantasy
shattered.


'Zactly, compare the choice of the SAH and the choices I made. The
job I
had
in 1999, came to an end when the office to which I was attached,
closed.
If
I had chosen to stay with the post office, today I would have 37
years
seniority, which means I would be making at least double what I
was
making
when I was laid off in 1999. Saying that SAHs should be paid for
their
"sacrifice" would be like me arguing to be paid as if I had stayed
with
the
post office or that my retirement should apply as if I had.
Choices have consequences, but it seems that this does not apply
to
women
who marry badly, become pregnant 'accidentally' or choose the
wrong
profession.
Phil #3

[snip]

You've hit the nail on the head, Phil. There's an unspoken
assumption
behind what goes on here. It is that women don't make mature
choices,
but invariably are the victims of men, or of some circumstance that
is
related to the female sex. This isn't spelled out, of course. But
it's
the only rational explanation for what goes on.

No, Kenneth, that's not what's being said. What is being said is
that,
in a
long-term SAH situation, BOTH parents made the choice--both should
carry
some of the consequences. It is an ongoing choice of *2* people.

... that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER
THAN HER
OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home
unless I
lock
you in.

So is that how you would expect partners in a business to operate, too?
Me
for me, and you for you, and to heck with working together for the
benefit
of all?

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Mel wrote:

If two people who get married are
only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of
getting
married?

The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even
though
you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money
and
you
takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of
the
car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to
accept
the
possibility of the bus.

After typing this into the Mel to english translator, this reads........


I'm in it for me and me alone.

Mrs Indyguy



Mel Gamble

Your translator is broken. Should have read.......

"I don't let other people make my decisions for me."

Or.......

"I don't make bad decisions for me just because somebody else wants me
to."

Or.......

"I'm an adult."

See??? Broken.

Mel Gamble

I don't see "We're married, let's make decisions for our family together,
Darling." in there anywhere, Mel.


That's because I didn't make a statement to that effect. See - your translator
is working fine, Indyguy's is broken.

Mel Gamble

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...

Cinderella can't afford her coach anymore - the government forced so many
changes in the design that the horses can no longer pull it, wouldn't be
allowed to if they could because of the pollution factor. And the fees to
license it are more than she can afford. Little girl dreams are a thing
of the
past. It's sad.....but true.

There is the other side of this discussion where women complain men have
Peter Pan Syndrome - meaning men refuse to commit, men refuse to settle
down, and men refuse to "grow up." Of course, women define men growing up
as men finally giving women what they want.

Women just have trouble accepting that Peter Pan is no naive boy, but
instead a very wise man.

I prefer reality...

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
And therefore....

Mel wrote:

snip

Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable
lifestyle.
You
build it together you should split it together. Neither will have
exactly
the
same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one shouldn't be
flipping
burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.

It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the burgers
would
have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had never
taken
place. Prove it.

There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage earner
would
be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH spouse
at
home
raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of everything
with
the exception of earning the money.

that she would be earning some magical amount if she hadn't been a SAH is
built
of hoooey. You remain true to form.

So you prefer to believe that every SAH parent would likely have been
earning minimum wage even after 20 years in the work force, Mel? Is there
no position between "She would have been earning as much as her ex" and "She
would have been earning minimum wage"?

which is that we'll never know. How can anybody reasonably say that when Hugh
Hefner marries a 20-year-old waitress from one of his clubs and divorces her 20
years later when he's 90 and she's 40, that the $2 million per year that she
gets in spousal support is to make up for the "earning power" that she would
have had if she had continued as a waitress at the club for another 20 years?
Maybe she would have worked up to head waitress. Maybe she'd have worked all
the way up to club manager, but I don't think the person managing a Playboy
club is pulling $2 million per year.

And maybe she'd have fallen for a truck driver the next year, quit the club to
go have 5 kids and be a SAH for them on his 25K income.....why do we have to
put her into the first "maybe" future" instead of the second? Why do we have
to assume that she "suffered" for being Hugh's SAH instead of assuming she
avoided the misery of being the trucker's wife?

Mel Gamble

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Exactly, Kenneth.

I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.

The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic relations
law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups in
the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people, embracing
all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians,

Wow!! I was not aware that one-legged lesbians had an official
minority-status group of their own!! I learn something new every day!!

but certainly
EXCLUDING heterosexual men.

And that, unfortunately, is true.



So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via no-fault
divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man that
she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to stay
home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
made her do it.

That is why I only consider a long-term SAH situation to be one that,
perhaps, needs attention. And I don't believe, any more that you do, that
hubby made her to it.


And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
her husband.

If a SAH wants to break up the family to go find herself--let her do it at
her own expense. Unless there is something going on that would harm her or
the children, or unless hubby is boffing his new secretary. But, then ,
we're back to "fault", aren't we? And we jsut don't do that these days!!


And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for, there's
no
investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if she'd
stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But she
always
has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.

Geesh, Mel!! Where do you come up with this stuff!!

Every coin has a flip-side, Teach. Science teaches us that it might land on
heads twice in a row, maybe will three times in a row. When somebody starts
trying to get us to believe that that coin would land on heads 2,500,000 times
out of 2,500,000 times.....it's time to take a closer look at that coin.

Mel Gamble

Mel wrote:

snip to
I hope the next gerneration of couples will look very different than what we
have seen in the past.

Thinking like yours is why there WON'T BE a next generation of (married)
couples.

WHY Mel? What is no unattractive about what I typed below? What is so horrible
about men and women each taking 50% of the at home duties? What is wrong with
BOTH men and women splitting the career sacrafices? Why should women continue
to work outside the home and do the vast majority of child rearing and at home
duties, and the men don't have to pick up their 50%?

You know we can go back and forth on SS, CS, etc. But here you have a totally
equal arrangement for a married couple and you say it would be the end of
couples.

Maybe I took your above comment wrong, but if I didn't you clearly don't want
equality in marriages. You want the old fashioned marriage where the man was
king and his wife was his servant. Is that what you really want Mel? Is that
what you want for your daughter?



I'd see this as a good thing for BOTH men and women.
Women will retain their careers and men will end up doing 50% of the child
rearing, home duties and take their share of career set backs for doing so,
like women have been expected to do in the past. WHEN this happens then
yeah,
what each earns will be theirs to keep, in the event of a divorce. If the
playing field is level all along then it will be level in the end.

But there is an added bonus for the men. If they are infact doing 50% of the
child rearing then 50/50 shared custody will be more the norm. And that's
what
most men want any way, right? So they won't mind actually doing it during
the
marriage. They will be thrilled they get to clean up the projectile vommit
at
3am when the kids are sick. They will relish leaving work early to sit in
the
Dr's office and wait 2 hours with a crying sick child. They will be ecstatic
not to take the clients out for cocktails after work, because they have to
bake
cupcakes and run the cake walk at the pre-school. Not seeing the big game
won't be missed because they'll be all warm and fuzzy at the mall getting Jr
the new shoes he needs for Monday.

SIGH... I can see it now. Men all over the country doing their 50% at home
and
being so very happy they don't have to pay their lazy SAH spouse one red
cent
if they divorce. I just get chills thinking about it.

You just get tingly thinking about other people's money...

Nah, money doesn't get to me the way the thought of men doing what society has
dictated women do for many many years.

And I don't think the changes I proposed would be the end of marriage. Maybe
the end of marital dictatorships, but hell those need to go anyway.

Mrs Indyguy



Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...
But, Kenneth, this wasn't about how things are today. Supposed SAH
moms
are
pretty well protected in the system today. This was about Drew
setting
up
a
new system where custody is 50-50 by default, and each parent supports
the
child from their own salary. The SAH in a long term marriage would be
at
a
distinct disadvantage in this situation, having been out of the
workforce
for so many years. I was asking Drew what he would build into his
system
in
this scenrario. I was most certainly not advocating for the abuse of
the
system by supposed stay-at-homes that we see today.

What is wrong with the SAH suffering the consequences of their decision?
It
would shatter any knight-in-shining-armour fantasy of women, but perhaps
that is a fantasy that should be shattered, as men have had their
fantasy
shattered.

Suppose it wasn't an individual decision, frazil? Suppose both parents
decided together that one would stay home and do all the domestic things
needed in the marriage, and the other would bring in the money? Together
they built what they have at the time of divorce. Why should only the SAH
parent suffer from a decision they made together?

First, even if both parents decide that one is going to stay at home,
ultimately it is the SAH's decision. For if they disagree the other parent
can't force the putative SAH to not be a stay at home, and work out side the
home. IOW, you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Also, just for grins, we always her how being a SAH is work. As that work
was, as they put it, uncompensate, they should be compensated with SS
because of their inability to work at a level that would provide them with a
SOL reasonable close to that to which they have gown accustomed. I
disagree, they had a roof over their head, food in the stomach, and all the
other trappings that the working-outside-the house spouse earned.

Except for a paycheck, of course.

Second,
many people experience a lay-off in their choosen career.

And collect unemployment insurance while they get back on their feet.......

A SAH, career,
is being a SAH. If they get laid-off by divorce, they either start a new
career, or find another position as a SAH.

Do they get a paycheck while they're working their career? Do they get
unemployment benefits in the case of a layoff? Do they get holidays off with
pay? 2 weeks vacation per year, during which they do not have to do their
career work? Do they get to clock out at 5, and stop working?

If they need to change careers,
they should expect to experience a decrease in their level of compensation,
as all people do when they switch careers. :-)





"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
I don't know, TeacherMama, how many couples jointly made an
agreement
that the wife would stay home. It's possible that the wife
unilaterally
decided, or that there was no explicit discussion of the issue.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, the principle you articulate is
used as a way to protect women, but is not applied to men when it
would
work in THEIR favor. Few would argue with the notion that making
people
bear the financial consequences of their own decisions is the right
way
to go. But why, in the U.S. today, are women who decide to end
their
marriages able to offload most of the financial consequences of
their
decisions onto their husbands?

Furthermore, in the rare cases where there is a divorce in a
situation
where the man was a stay-at-home husband, or had the primary role in
looking after the children, the indications are that he still does
not
get custody of the children. I know of no overall statistics on
this
point. However, I can think immediately of several examples where,
in
these situations, the wife still exercised her traditional role of
taking custody in the divorce, despite the fact that the husband had
the
main responsibility for the children. For example, one was the
situation of Marcia Clark, the OJ prosecutor, who had custody of her
child, despite the fact that she was a workaholic, and her ex had
flexible work arrangements that enabled him to look after the child
much
more easily than Ms. Clark.

The fact of the matter is that your "two people enter into an
agreement" principle, like so many other general principles in this
area, never is used to protect the interests of men. The basic
reason
is that, here as elsewhere, laws and judges take account of the
reality
that, in the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up.


TeacherMama wrote:

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:Gv4Ja.161790$eJ2.78591@fed1read07...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

Then why bother with marriage at all, Drew? Why not just say
that
each
person should look out for themselves, at no-matter-whose
expense?
Let's
just teach our children how to look out for number one, and
precisely
how
to
screw over anyone who gets in their way. That'll certainly
set
things
right
again!!

True, why bother with marriage at all. So essentially, you see
marriage
as
a protection in a relationship? If a couple really loves and
trusts
eachother, do they need protection? I think someone who gets
married
so
that they can get protection for the future is looking out for
number
one.
I don't see anything wrong with looking out for number one, it's
important
to plan for your future. I don't believe in screwing anyone
over
though.
If I were in a relationship, and my spouse/girlfriend put me
through
school,
I would feel obligated to return the favor, but don't think it
should
be a
mandatory court order. Of course, if the relationship ended
because
the
ex
was screwing around, see ya, thanks for college.

You must have been badly burned by the women in your life for you
to
say
that women marry to get protection for the future. IF that is why
somwone
marries, then they probably shouldn't be marrying at all!

But if two people enter into an agreement that one parent will
stay
home
and
do the "home" things--which have absolutely no value in being
financially
independent--and the other will work outside the home to provide
the
finances necessary, and increases his ability to earn in the
process--then
both should be equally responsible for the results! Perhaps,
then,
the
SAH
parent should get the house upon divorce, because, after all, she
was
the
one looking after it as her part of the agreement. And the other
parent
should just get their money, since that is all they did during the
marriage.

I wish that the government were completely booted out of family
matters,
and
could only be brought in for the most egregious of reasons. The
system
is
so screwed up today because it is the decent people who are being
used
as
whipping boys by the government to cover up their ongoing
inability
to
do
anything about those who refuse to cooperate.

"Sunny" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:35:13 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:

Why not tell your own kids what to do, and stay out of other people's kids'
lives?

Sometimes, bad parents put their child's emotional welfare at risk.
Like your children, for example. We tried to warn you, and now they
are screwed up beyond repair. Strangers on Usenet were more concerned
about your kids than you were.

You're in a minority - my children are just fine, thanks for your concern :-)

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...
But, Kenneth, this wasn't about how things are today. Supposed SAH
moms
are
pretty well protected in the system today. This was about Drew
setting
up
a
new system where custody is 50-50 by default, and each parent
supports
the
child from their own salary. The SAH in a long term marriage would
be
at
a
distinct disadvantage in this situation, having been out of the
workforce
for so many years. I was asking Drew what he would build into his
system
in
this scenrario. I was most certainly not advocating for the abuse
of
the
system by supposed stay-at-homes that we see today.

What is wrong with the SAH suffering the consequences of their
decision?
It
would shatter any knight-in-shining-armour fantasy of women, but
perhaps
that is a fantasy that should be shattered, as men have had their
fantasy
shattered.

Suppose it wasn't an individual decision, frazil? Suppose both parents
decided together that one would stay home and do all the domestic things
needed in the marriage, and the other would bring in the money?
Together
they built what they have at the time of divorce. Why should only the
SAH
parent suffer from a decision they made together?

First, even if both parents decide that one is going to stay at home,
ultimately it is the SAH's decision. For if they disagree the other
parent
can't force the putative SAH to not be a stay at home, and work out side
the
home. IOW, you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Also, just for grins, we always hear how being a SAH is work. As that
work
was, as they put it, uncompensated, they should be compensated with SS
because of their inability to work at a level that would provide them with
a
SOL reasonable close to that to which they have gown accustomed.

Actually, I've never even mentioned 'similar SOL'. What I have said is that
a SAH in a long-term relationship should not have to live in a
roach-infested hovel at near poverty level while the wage-earner gets to
keep the SOL they both worked for together. The children should not have to
spend 50% of their time in poverty, and 50% in their accustomed SOL. The
COUPLE worked to get to where they are--not just the wage earner.

I
disagree, they had a roof over their head, food in the stomach, and all
the
other trappings that the working-outside-the house spouse earned.

They both earned it, Fraz. Each in their own role. The SAH was not a
servant to be dismissed when the wage earner was tired of her, but 1/2 of a
team that functioned together.


Second,
many people experience a lay-off in their choosen career. A SAH, career,
is being a SAH. If they get laid-off by divorce, they either start a new
career, or find another position as a SAH. If they need to change
careers,
they should expect to experience a decrease in their level of
compensation,
as all people do when they switch careers. :-)

I think Moon's comments cover this part quite well. =c)