If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Loafing step-daughter
"Melissa" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: Actually, "we" believe in kicking the father out of the home; and the more we can keep him away from his children the more money the mother gets paid. SO and I have been on both sides of the child support issue now. The idea that anyone can life high off the hog on a child support check is laughable. Non sequitur. My point was that this is now the American way. What I said above is true. Well no actually. You're incorrect. Generally support isn't based on how much time you have with the kid, except maybe in a joint custody situation. What did you think I was referring to? And again, it's not really a large amount of money when you compare it to what the monthly costs for a kid are. The idea that women kick fathers out of the house in order to cash in is just silly. Remove the cash incentive and then see how many women kick fathers out of the house. M |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Loafing step-daughter
Chris wrote:
Remove the cash incentive and then see how many women kick fathers out of the house. Chris, are you currently paying anyone child support? I'd like to know how you became such an expert. M |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Loafing step-daughter
"Melissa" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: Remove the cash incentive and then see how many women kick fathers out of the house. Chris, are you currently paying anyone child support? I'd like to know how you became such an expert. If you don't like what Chris is saying a little research on your part might influence your thinking. A good source to back up Chris' comment is the research and writings of Dr. Margaret F. Brinig, who is a family law professor and Ph.D..D in economics. Her most famous writing is called "These Boots Are Made For Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women." She found that there are two significant motivators that drive women's desire to kick men out of the house. First, the virtually guaranteed ability to gain primary custody of children is an emotional motivator which provides women with emotional stability once the man is gone. And second, to predictability of CS awards is a financial motivator which provides women with financial security once the man is gone. While Chris only referred to the "cash incentive" the combination of financial and emotional incentives drives women's behavior when they discard men from their lives. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It's a complex and usually no-win situation
Bob Whiteside wrote: She found that there are two significant motivators that drive women's desire to kick men out of the house. First, the virtually guaranteed ability to gain primary custody of children is an emotional motivator which provides women with emotional stability once the man is gone. And second, to predictability of CS awards is a financial motivator which provides women with financial security once the man is gone. Sheesh. And to think I left my husband because he was a lying abusive cross-dresser. That my sister left her husband because he gambled away everything they had including their house and children's future. That another sister left hers because after 25 years of public intimidation and humiliation, she realised she didn't have to put up with it. I guess we sisters should have read Dr. Margaret F. Brinig first, because none of us receives child support - we each have three children, we each have independent careers, we support our own families, and we receive diddly-squat from our ex's. (And yes, the ex's all spend regular time with the children, at least two nights a week, and in all cases it's the children's decision how much time they spend with each parent). And we're happy enough with the arrangements. On the other hand, my new partner pays $3K a month to his ex-wife, who literally stole the children away to another state overnight, and he gets to see them all of 4 weeks a year (but only if he barely eats, so he can afford the airfares). The $3K is based on (apparently) "what is costs to keep 3 children of that age." Jesus! That's more than most familes *earn* in a month!! It's a complex situation, there's no black and white, and there's no generalities you can apply. Suggesting that "women kick men out for the cash incentives" is ill-informed and quite frankly, a bit stupid. I don't know what the magic answer is (I don't think there is one), but certainly allocating blame (either universally to her, or universally to him) is not going to resolve anything and help anyone. Cathryn. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
It's a complex and usually no-win situation
"cathryn" wrote in message oups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: She found that there are two significant motivators that drive women's desire to kick men out of the house. First, the virtually guaranteed ability to gain primary custody of children is an emotional motivator which provides women with emotional stability once the man is gone. And second, to predictability of CS awards is a financial motivator which provides women with financial security once the man is gone. Sheesh. And to think I left my husband because he was a lying abusive cross-dresser. That my sister left her husband because he gambled away everything they had including their house and children's future. That another sister left hers because after 25 years of public intimidation and humiliation, she realised she didn't have to put up with it. I guess we sisters should have read Dr. Margaret F. Brinig first, because none of us receives child support - we each have three children, we each have independent careers, we support our own families, and we receive diddly-squat from our ex's. (And yes, the ex's all spend regular time with the children, at least two nights a week, and in all cases it's the children's decision how much time they spend with each parent). And we're happy enough with the arrangements. Not to mention that the three of you are a fair representation of the majority, correct? And should your child say one day "well mom, I think I want to spend 100% of the time with dad", your response will be "that's great child, whatever you decide". On the other hand, my new partner pays $3K a month to his ex-wife, who literally stole the children away to another state overnight, and he gets to see them all of 4 weeks a year (but only if he barely eats, so he can afford the airfares). The $3K is based on (apparently) "what is costs to keep 3 children of that age." Jesus! That's more than most familes *earn* in a month!! It's a complex situation, there's no black and white, and there's no generalities you can apply. Suggesting that "women kick men out for the cash incentives" is ill-informed and quite frankly, a bit stupid. Of course it is. We all know that women have no knowledge of the existence of the custody time percentage scale reflecting the amount of cash they are awarded; thus it is nothing more than a lucky coincidence that they get paid more money to keep dad away from the children. I don't know what the magic answer is (I don't think there is one), but certainly allocating blame (either universally to her, or universally to him) is not going to resolve anything and help anyone. Cathryn. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
It's a complex and usually no-win situation
"cathryn" wrote in message oups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: She found that there are two significant motivators that drive women's desire to kick men out of the house. First, the virtually guaranteed ability to gain primary custody of children is an emotional motivator which provides women with emotional stability once the man is gone. And second, to predictability of CS awards is a financial motivator which provides women with financial security once the man is gone. Sheesh. And to think I left my husband because he was a lying abusive cross-dresser. That my sister left her husband because he gambled away everything they had including their house and children's future. That another sister left hers because after 25 years of public intimidation and humiliation, she realised she didn't have to put up with it. I guess we sisters should have read Dr. Margaret F. Brinig first, because none of us receives child support - we each have three children, we each have independent careers, we support our own families, and we receive diddly-squat from our ex's. (And yes, the ex's all spend regular time with the children, at least two nights a week, and in all cases it's the children's decision how much time they spend with each parent). And we're happy enough with the arrangements. On the other hand, my new partner pays $3K a month to his ex-wife, who literally stole the children away to another state overnight, and he gets to see them all of 4 weeks a year (but only if he barely eats, so he can afford the airfares). The $3K is based on (apparently) "what is costs to keep 3 children of that age." Jesus! That's more than most familes *earn* in a month!! It's a complex situation, there's no black and white, and there's no generalities you can apply. Suggesting that "women kick men out for the cash incentives" is ill-informed and quite frankly, a bit stupid. Actually, your comment is the stupid one. Personal anecedotes DO NOT equal facts. The fact is there ARE generalites that apply, you are simply to ignorant to comprehend them http://www.gocrc.com/research/custpolicies.html http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php I don't know what the magic answer is (I don't think there is one), but certainly allocating blame (either universally to her, or universally to him) is not going to resolve anything and help anyone. Cathryn. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
It's a complex and usually no-win situation
"cathryn" wrote in message oups.com... It's a complex situation, there's no black and white, and there's no generalities you can apply. Suggesting that "women kick men out for the cash incentives" is ill-informed and quite frankly, a bit stupid. I don't know what the magic answer is (I don't think there is one), but certainly allocating blame (either universally to her, or universally to him) is not going to resolve anything and help anyone. A good start would be to understand there is a big difference between the financial (CS) and emotional (custody) incentives that encourage divorces to occur and a list of reasons why people divorce. The ease of no-fault divorce coupled with the incentives to divorce make even the most minor of issues to become reasons to end a marriage. Since women statistically initiate divorces about 85% of the time, it is important to understand the reasons women give for ending their marriages. The top 5 reasons Dr. Sanford Braver found in his research include: 1.) Gradual growing apart, losing a sense of closeness, 2.) Serious differences in lifestyle and/or values, 3.) Not feeling loved or appreciated by spouse, 4.) Spouse not able or willing to meet major needs, and 5.) Emotional problems of the spouse. I guess you could classify a cross dresser as being included in emotional problems of the spouse. Gambling problems that lose everything would most likely fit into the 9th listed reason - spouse not reliable. Long term humiliation would most likely fit into the 8th listed reason - frequently felt put down or belittled by spouse. But the fact remains, all of the top reasons women list for initiating divorce are touchy-feely reasons that reflect women's mental perceptions of the marriage relationship and have nothing to do with specific, defined negative behavior by their husbands. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It's a complex and usually no-win situation
In article . net, Bob Whiteside
says... "cathryn" wrote in message roups.com... It's a complex situation, there's no black and white, and there's no generalities you can apply. Suggesting that "women kick men out for the cash incentives" is ill-informed and quite frankly, a bit stupid. I don't know what the magic answer is (I don't think there is one), but certainly allocating blame (either universally to her, or universally to him) is not going to resolve anything and help anyone. A good start would be to understand there is a big difference between the financial (CS) and emotional (custody) incentives that encourage divorces to occur and a list of reasons why people divorce. The ease of no-fault divorce coupled with the incentives to divorce make even the most minor of issues to become reasons to end a marriage. Since women statistically initiate divorces about 85% of the time, it is important to understand the reasons women give for ending their marriages. The top 5 reasons Dr. Sanford Braver found in his research include: 1.) Gradual growing apart, losing a sense of closeness, 2.) Serious differences in lifestyle and/or values, 3.) Not feeling loved or appreciated by spouse, 4.) Spouse not able or willing to meet major needs, and 5.) Emotional problems of the spouse. I guess you could classify a cross dresser as being included in emotional problems of the spouse. Gambling problems that lose everything would most likely fit into the 9th listed reason - spouse not reliable. Long term humiliation would most likely fit into the 8th listed reason - frequently felt put down or belittled by spouse. But the fact remains, all of the top reasons women list for initiating divorce are touchy-feely reasons that reflect women's mental perceptions of the marriage relationship and have nothing to do with specific, defined negative behavior by their husbands. So, number four, for example, would be a matter of 'mental perception'? If she dint' meet *his* needs, would it be viewed the same? That's a pretty broad category. In 'Chris's' case, his wife may well be met with a dilemma of helping her daughter vs. staying married. But Chris has stated he won't divorce. So that leaves the resolution of the dilemma to - her. So, forced into a choice like that, *she'd* end up in the "initiated divorce" stat. But, I'd submit that "initiated divorce" is quite a different thing from "destroyed marriage". And that isn't such an uncommon thing. Banty |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
It's a complex and usually no-win situation
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article . net, Bob Whiteside says... "cathryn" wrote in message roups.com... It's a complex situation, there's no black and white, and there's no generalities you can apply. Suggesting that "women kick men out for the cash incentives" is ill-informed and quite frankly, a bit stupid. I don't know what the magic answer is (I don't think there is one), but certainly allocating blame (either universally to her, or universally to him) is not going to resolve anything and help anyone. A good start would be to understand there is a big difference between the financial (CS) and emotional (custody) incentives that encourage divorces to occur and a list of reasons why people divorce. The ease of no-fault divorce coupled with the incentives to divorce make even the most minor of issues to become reasons to end a marriage. Since women statistically initiate divorces about 85% of the time, it is important to understand the reasons women give for ending their marriages. The top 5 reasons Dr. Sanford Braver found in his research include: 1.) Gradual growing apart, losing a sense of closeness, 2.) Serious differences in lifestyle and/or values, 3.) Not feeling loved or appreciated by spouse, 4.) Spouse not able or willing to meet major needs, and 5.) Emotional problems of the spouse. I guess you could classify a cross dresser as being included in emotional problems of the spouse. Gambling problems that lose everything would most likely fit into the 9th listed reason - spouse not reliable. Long term humiliation would most likely fit into the 8th listed reason - frequently felt put down or belittled by spouse. But the fact remains, all of the top reasons women list for initiating divorce are touchy-feely reasons that reflect women's mental perceptions of the marriage relationship and have nothing to do with specific, defined negative behavior by their husbands. So, number four, for example, would be a matter of 'mental perception'? If she dint' meet *his* needs, would it be viewed the same? That's a pretty broad category. Men who initiate divorce cite "spouse not able to meet mjors needs" as the 4th most important factor. So the "needs" issue is identically perceived by both men and women. The difference is women cite the "needs" issue as being very important in 41% of divorces while men cite it as very important in 32% of divorces they initiate. In 'Chris's' case, his wife may well be met with a dilemma of helping her daughter vs. staying married. But Chris has stated he won't divorce. So that leaves the resolution of the dilemma to - her. So, forced into a choice like that, *she'd* end up in the "initiated divorce" stat. But, I'd submit that "initiated divorce" is quite a different thing from "destroyed marriage". And that isn't such an uncommon thing. Wow! The old bad husband/dad image, he made me do it, outdated thinking that women throw out when they are reluctant to accept responsibility for their own actions. Chris will have to comment on his own case, but it sounds like he took his marriage vows a lot more seriously than his wife did. Look at the list of top 5 reasons women divorce again. There is nothing there to substantiate the old fault based reasons for divorce like violence, abuse, drugs, alcohol, extramarital affairs, etc. I think everyone would agree those would be issues that "destroyed a marriage." But the research indicates the old fault based reasons are not cited that often by women for initiating a divorce. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
It's a complex and usually no-win situation
In article , Bob Whiteside
says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article . net, Bob Whiteside says... "cathryn" wrote in message roups.com... It's a complex situation, there's no black and white, and there's no generalities you can apply. Suggesting that "women kick men out for the cash incentives" is ill-informed and quite frankly, a bit stupid. I don't know what the magic answer is (I don't think there is one), but certainly allocating blame (either universally to her, or universally to him) is not going to resolve anything and help anyone. A good start would be to understand there is a big difference between the financial (CS) and emotional (custody) incentives that encourage divorces to occur and a list of reasons why people divorce. The ease of no-fault divorce coupled with the incentives to divorce make even the most minor of issues to become reasons to end a marriage. Since women statistically initiate divorces about 85% of the time, it is important to understand the reasons women give for ending their marriages. The top 5 reasons Dr. Sanford Braver found in his research include: 1.) Gradual growing apart, losing a sense of closeness, 2.) Serious differences in lifestyle and/or values, 3.) Not feeling loved or appreciated by spouse, 4.) Spouse not able or willing to meet major needs, and 5.) Emotional problems of the spouse. I guess you could classify a cross dresser as being included in emotional problems of the spouse. Gambling problems that lose everything would most likely fit into the 9th listed reason - spouse not reliable. Long term humiliation would most likely fit into the 8th listed reason - frequently felt put down or belittled by spouse. But the fact remains, all of the top reasons women list for initiating divorce are touchy-feely reasons that reflect women's mental perceptions of the marriage relationship and have nothing to do with specific, defined negative behavior by their husbands. So, number four, for example, would be a matter of 'mental perception'? If she dint' meet *his* needs, would it be viewed the same? That's a pretty broad category. Men who initiate divorce cite "spouse not able to meet mjors needs" as the 4th most important factor. So the "needs" issue is identically perceived by both men and women. The difference is women cite the "needs" issue as being very important in 41% of divorces while men cite it as very important in 32% of divorces they initiate. In 'Chris's' case, his wife may well be met with a dilemma of helping her daughter vs. staying married. But Chris has stated he won't divorce. So that leaves the resolution of the dilemma to - her. So, forced into a choice like that, *she'd* end up in the "initiated divorce" stat. But, I'd submit that "initiated divorce" is quite a different thing from "destroyed marriage". And that isn't such an uncommon thing. Wow! The old bad husband/dad image, he made me do it, outdated thinking that women throw out when they are reluctant to accept responsibility for their own actions. Chris will have to comment on his own case, but it sounds like he took his marriage vows a lot more seriously than his wife did. Look at the list of top 5 reasons women divorce again. There is nothing there to substantiate the old fault based reasons for divorce like violence, abuse, drugs, alcohol, extramarital affairs, etc. I think everyone would agree those would be issues that "destroyed a marriage." But the research indicates the old fault based reasons are not cited that often by women for initiating a divorce. Wow. (How did old bad dad get into this?) What's outdated. If someone is backed into a corner where they have to choose between, say, child and marriage, but the spouse who made that demand won't divorce, it's a matter of limited recourse. I think the wife-initiated stats for divorce reflect that, if for one gender there is less power within the marriage, more often the only 'out' is out. Banty |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 30th 05 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 28th 04 06:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | October 29th 04 05:23 AM |
Review: First Daughter (*) | Steve Rhodes | General | 2 | September 24th 04 01:11 AM |
Children's friends | Sue Larson | Solutions | 0 | April 1st 04 08:28 PM |