Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

Because, Max, you keep turning it into a he-she thing. You don't seem to
have a concept of "together". The fact that his chosen role is what
provides the material necessities of life, and hers provides the rest, does
not seem in the least important to you. The fact that it was he and she
together that got to the point where they are at the end of the marriage
does not seem to matter to you. Only the money and the possibility of being
parted with it seems to matter to you. Only money! The SAH worked as hard
as the breadwinner for all those years--they worked together to build a
home--and you still see it as "the breadwinner's money." As if "she" has
been spending "his" money all these years. Not "their" money, because what
the two of them are building is a "them" thing. Which is the exact same
sickness that the system we have today is infected with. Only the money
counts--nothing else. Only money. Which is what makes it so very, very
sad!

As for my step-nephew, he doesn't give a rat's tush about the children he
has fathered. The system doesn't do a thing about it because he makes no
money. And, as much as I think there needs to be great reform in the area
of forcing men into fatherhood, I do not believe that any man should have
carte blanche to spill his seed anywhere and everywhere and then walk away
saying "tough sh*t--I don't wanna be a dad. You the woman--deal with it."
Just as I don't believe that a woman should bring into this world child
after child she can't support and then expect someone else to support her
and the kids. Both are wrong--BOTH.


"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
TeacherMama scribbled:

Max Burke wrote:

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.

Except when it comes to your step nephew (or whatever relation he is to
you....)

I have ALWAYS that DNA should be used to determine paternity
whenever either party wants it.

Many women that post here DONT, including those that have been
participating here for years, and claim to be completely supportive of
men.

I DO NOT believe that ANY person
should pay child support for a child that is not theirs.

And I do not appreciate your above statement.

Tough!
Given the way you're refusing to even respond to the point I'm making
and bringing up all these strawman arguments you dont get the benefit
the doubt here....
You're just being completely hypocritical in your responses........

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.

Yet again show me *ANYWHERE* in my posts that *I* disagree with that
happening. *I* dont.
But that isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about the
SAH being 'compensated' for being the SAH. That's what you are arguing
for; That's what I'm arguing against.

I truly don't give a rat's tush
whether it is alimony or not.

I know YOU dont.

He has the high-paying job--let her
have the house.

If you want to put it like that it was his HIGH PAYING JOB that provided
the house for her to live and play housekeeper in.

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.

Only as long as he gets half the proceeds.

And this would only be in cases of long-term marriages with a SAH
parent.

Long term where I live is three years and you dont even have to be
married....

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.

That's what you want for the SAH; Compensation for the career sacrifices
they made by choosing to be the SAH......

The SAH does not get
"compensated" for being a maid, gardener, cook, etc.

No one, least of all me, said they do. After all the 'ability' to do all
those things are as a direct result of the working partner paying for
the house and garden while *working.* That is their 'payment.' He gets
to pay for the house, she gets to take care of the house.....

Because the SAH
wasn't any of those things! The SAH fulfilled their agreed-upon
role, the breadwinner theirs. They should come out of the deal in
somewhat equal positions.

Exactly. The split the *marital/relationship assets* 50/50 and go their
separate ways; there is no need for either provide for the other's post
divorce needs in any way at all.

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.

Why not?

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.

Children are NOT property. It's NOT about who gets to have the children
at all. Why bring in all these strawman 'arguments?'

It's about YOU saying the working partner, upon divorce, should provide
or compensate the SAH for them giving up their 'career' to be an SAH,
and just so the SAH can get back on their feet; It's about the working
partner having to continue to support the SAH because they cant support
themselves.

Why did YOU snip the comment of mine which puts the above in the proper
context?

This is why YOUR hypocrisy disgusts me.

Why dont YOU provide an answer for THIS point.

[here is the *complete* context; try some honesty when responding this
time]

Both make their choices *together*, both know they have to have to
*sacrifice* something. I can see no justification that should a divorce
happen, the SAH gets to be 'compensated' by their ex for that which the
willingly and *KNOWINGLY* gave up to be an SAH just so they can get back
to where they were *before* they chose the SAH lifestyle.

After all the one who chose to work will have to make changes that would
have significant career and financial impact on their lives as well when
the divorce happens; They'll either have to give up their full time
career to provide the hands on care for the children while in their
custody 50% of the time, or pay childcare expenses to a third party so
they can continue to have a full time career; They will also have
housing, education, and health expenses, the same as the SAH would have.

[here is the part YOU refuse to comment on; I wonder why...]

They should NOT have to then pay on top of that, 'compensation' to their
ex, just because their ex needs to keep up or get back their
'marketable' skills so the 'former' SAH can pay their bills.....
And anyway flipping burgers, answering a phone, changing towels in a
hotel bathroom, or 'checking out' the groceries in a supermarket doesn't
require years of training to obtain 'marketable skills' at all.

# If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation,
then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same
test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women
when their rights are put to that test....

--

Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

TeacherMama scribbled:
Because, Max, you keep turning it into a he-she thing.

BS If anyone is doing that YOU are.......

You don't
seem to have a concept of "together". The fact that his chosen role
is what provides the material necessities of life, and hers provides
the rest, does not seem in the least important to you.

BS again......

The fact that
it was he and she together that got to the point where they are at
the end of the marriage does not seem to matter to you. Only the
money and the possibility of being parted with it seems to matter to
you. Only money!

It's YOU claiming that there is a need for the SAH to be supported *by
money* from their ex post divorce for being the SAH, NOT ME!

The SAH worked as hard as the breadwinner for all
those years--they worked together to build a home--and you still see
it as "the breadwinner's money."

BS yet again......
You're not even reading my comments are you......

As if "she" has been spending "his"
money all these years. Not "their" money, because what the two of
them are building is a "them" thing.

BS for the *FORTH* time......

Which is the exact same
sickness that the system we have today is infected with. Only the
money counts--nothing else. Only money. Which is what makes it so
very, very sad!

It's YOU who says the SAH needs to be 'supported' post divorce when
there is no need to have CS under a joint custody arrangement, NOT ME!
It's YOU saying someone (preferably) the ex of the SAH needs to provide
financial support to stop the SAH 'sliding into poverty,' NOT ME!
It's YOU that says the one who chose to work should be the one who has
to support the SAH financially post divorce, NOT ME!

You are the one who has made this debate all about money for the SAH,
NOT ME!

To recap:
Drews argument is that under a joint custody arrangement there is no
need for CS to be paid from one parent to another; You immediately say
what about the SAH? Who will look after them if they dont get a regular
CS cheque? How will they live after the divorce if they're dont have CS
coming in each week?
You then say they have the right to be paid, compensated, whatever for
simply being the SAH in the marriage.

All your 'weasel words' about how sad it is that it has to be negotiated
this way is simply you being hypocritical again....

Oh and you STILL HAVEN'T made one SINGLE comment about the real subject
of the debate, and are simply posting yet more 'strawman arguments' to
avoid doing so....

As for my step-nephew, he doesn't give a rat's tush about the
children he has fathered. The system doesn't do a thing about it
because he makes no money. And, as much as I think there needs to be
great reform in the area of forcing men into fatherhood, I do not
believe that any man should have carte blanche to spill his seed
anywhere and everywhere and then walk away saying "tough sh*t--I
don't wanna be a dad. You the woman--deal with it." Just as I don't
believe that a woman should bring into this world child after child
she can't support and then expect someone else to support her and the
kids. Both are wrong--BOTH.

Thanks for *YET AGAIN* proving your hypocrisy.......

Why dont YOU provide an answer for THIS point.

[here is the *complete* context; try some honesty when responding this
time]

Both make their choices *together*, both know they have to have to
*sacrifice* something. I can see no justification that should a divorce
happen, the SAH gets to be 'compensated' by their ex for that which the
willingly and *KNOWINGLY* gave up to be an SAH just so they can get back
to where they were *before* they chose the SAH lifestyle.

After all the one who chose to work will have to make changes that would
have significant career and financial impact on their lives as well when
the divorce happens; They'll either have to give up their full time
career to provide the hands on care for the children while in their
custody 50% of the time, or pay childcare expenses to a
third party so they can continue to have a full time career; They will
also have housing, education, and health expenses, the same as the SAH
would have.

[here is the part YOU refuse to comment on; I wonder why...]

They should NOT have to then pay on top of that, 'compensation' to
their ex, just because their ex needs to keep up or get back their
'marketable' skills so the 'former' SAH can pay their bills.....
And anyway flipping burgers, answering a phone, changing towels in a
hotel bathroom, or 'checking out' the groceries in a supermarket doesn't
require years of training to obtain 'marketable skills' at all.

# If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation,
then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same
test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women
when their rights are put to that test....

--

Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

I think Bob's comments below have it about right. One result of the
mainly feminist-inspired changes in marriage has been to change the
balance of advantage between the sexes -- both while the marriage lasts
and in divorce. People of my father's generation could expect a far
better deal from marriage than people of the present generation of men.
Among other things, their position within their families was much more
secure, and it was very unlikely that they would be stuck with paying
the bill for families from which they had been excluded.

Men don't have a choice about working. However, they do have a choice
about getting married. I'm very much in favor of strong, stable
families. However, increasingly I think that such families will not
become the norm again without an interim period during which men boycott
marriage.

A boycott of marriage by men appears likely to be the most likely way
of turning back the changes that have made marriage into such a bad deal
for men. Furthermore, I also think that fathers' groups should be more
active in disseminating to younger unmarried men what is likely to
happen to them if they get married. I see few signs at present in the
U.S. of any moves away from no-fault divorce or towards ending the glass
ceiling on paternal custody -- two of the most effective ways of
controlling the divorce epidemic.


Bob Whiteside wrote:

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

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

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

Wrong!! That's what really bugs me--it was not a choice the woman
necessarily made on her own. The husband and wife worked these
choices
out
TOGETHER. Post divorce, if he doesn't clean his house, he suffers a
bit,
but eventually figures it out. SHE, on the other had, would begin
suffering
immediately from lack of any income, until she landed a job--probably
minimum wage. So HE benefits from choices they BOTH made, and she
suffers.

My parents were married for 50 years. They raised 8 children with her
as
a
stay at home mom and him as the bread winner. If, during those years,
he
had decided to walk out (never a possibility in real life), should she
have
had to support and raise us on minimum wage? Just because she trusted
that
their commitment to each other and the choices they made as a couple
were
for the rest of their lives? My brother and his wife have 6 children.
He
works outside the home, and she homeschools the children. How could
you
even begin to think it is ok for him to walk out and expect her to be
instantly self-supporting, while he goes on his merry way with his
nearly
6
digit income?

Marriage should not be a "his choice-her choice" deal, but an "our
choice"
thing. And NOBODY should end up totally screwed when divorce rears
its
ugly
head!

Prior to the women's movement that started in the 60's marriage was
based
on
women finding an ideal candidate to support her and any children they
might
have together. The man's role was to work outside the home and the
woman's
role was to work within the home. Under these role definitions divorce
was
rare and women would typically file for divorce only under extreme
circumstances.

As the women's movement began to take shape, women were some of the
biggest,
most vocal detractors of the equality for pay and opportunities for
other
women. Their husbands' careers were the financial lifelines for their
families and the attempts to strengthen the women's role in the
workplace
were seen as weakening the man's role, and therefore a direct assault on
women at home.

The definition of marriage roles changed with the women's movement. As
women became more successful in the workplace, the divorce rate began to
grow. SAH women viewed these changes as discrimination against them,
and
this lead to measures to protect women. The concept of alimony grew out
of
changes in the workplace. What had worked for SAH women previously was
falling apart because other women were replacing their husband's role,
and
women viewed the changes as being a plot against them. ***** This in
turn
led to
the concept of men owing women for the changes based on a sense of
entitlement to maintain what they had enjoyed for years with male only
providers in the workplace.******

This is where I disagree with you, Bob. It was not a sense of
*entitlement*! These women HAD done therepart, and did not deserve to be
left high and dry, with no skills and no way to support themselves and
their
children. It was only right that they be given a helping hand into the
workplace!

I am not suggesting that women did not do their part. What changed when the
divorce rate started rising dramatically was the sources where women found
economic security. Previously their main source of financial security came
from their husband's income and the SAHM model was the norm.

Women were not left high and dry." With the advent of the women's movement
divorces became easier the obtain and women began entering the workplace in
record numbers. And simultaneously women were given multiple choices on how
to achieve economic security. Added to the husband as provider option were
options for women to gain income via career or through government actions as
their surrogate husband providing welfare, WIC, affirmative action in
hiring, increased CS awards, garnishments if support wasn't paid, college
admission preferences, military service, women headed small business loans
and preferential tax treatment,. So women ended up with multiple economic
options to select from as replacements for their husband's income.

Men on the other hand, ended up with less than one option. Men have always
had only one option in their role of being the income earner. But with all
the changes that favored women the pressure on men to be a provider became
more intense. With more women entering the workplace, employment options
for men started to decline. and simultaneously men were asked to pay
increased CS, mortgage payment on houses they no longer lived in, apartment
rental, alimony, visitation expenses, and dating.

My opinion is these changes are within a zero sum game. Every advantage
women won to prevent them from being left "high and dry" was taken away from
men. And the reason men are described as "not changing" as fast as women is
because men have fewer options to change to. And the reason men are
described as being "commitment phobic" is because men recognize how the
landscape has changed to their disadvantage.

snip

What bothers me about what you say here is that it sounds like two
individuals living together out of convenience--not like a lifetime
partnership.

That's not exactly what I am saying. What marriage has evolved into a
one-sided relationship where the women hold all the good cards. All they
have to do is exercise their option to no-fault divorce and the marriage is
done, even over the objections of the husband. And the government will step
in as surrogate husband and take money away from the husband to give the
woman replacement economic security in the form of CS, alimony, property,
and attorney fees. It's not a "partnership" when one party is virtually
guaranteed custody of children, at least half the assets, predictable CS
awards, and alimony while the other party is guaranteed to pay for all those
options awarded to women.

As I understand it, the chief motivators for women in marriage are financial
security, companionship, and a good relationship. For men the prime
motivators of marriage are approval and regular sex. When divorce occurs
women withdraw their approval of men and the sex. But the women get to keep
the financial security, plus the emotional security of companionship and
relationships with the children.

snip

But that's the point--it is not necessarily "women's choices." It is a
choice that couples sit down and make together--because that's what they
BOTH want for their children! So, in the end, only the woman would pay
the
price for the couple's choice? That is just as bad as only the man paying
the price for divorce!

My point is - women can sit down with their husbands and make choices they
both agree to. They then implement those choices. But later on the women
can renege on her choices and replace her original choices with other
choices off the menu of options. As long as women are allowed to renege on
the choices they make, marriage rates will suffer.

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.

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.

"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.

And I don't disagree with you at all. But it breaks my heart to think about
the world my young daughters are moving into.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
I think Bob's comments below have it about right. One result of the
mainly feminist-inspired changes in marriage has been to change the
balance of advantage between the sexes -- both while the marriage lasts
and in divorce. People of my father's generation could expect a far
better deal from marriage than people of the present generation of men.
Among other things, their position within their families was much more
secure, and it was very unlikely that they would be stuck with paying
the bill for families from which they had been excluded.

Men don't have a choice about working. However, they do have a choice
about getting married. I'm very much in favor of strong, stable
families. However, increasingly I think that such families will not
become the norm again without an interim period during which men boycott
marriage.

A boycott of marriage by men appears likely to be the most likely way
of turning back the changes that have made marriage into such a bad deal
for men. Furthermore, I also think that fathers' groups should be more
active in disseminating to younger unmarried men what is likely to
happen to them if they get married. I see few signs at present in the
U.S. of any moves away from no-fault divorce or towards ending the glass
ceiling on paternal custody -- two of the most effective ways of
controlling the divorce epidemic.


Bob Whiteside wrote:

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

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

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

Wrong!! That's what really bugs me--it was not a choice the woman
necessarily made on her own. The husband and wife worked these
choices
out
TOGETHER. Post divorce, if he doesn't clean his house, he suffers
a
bit,
but eventually figures it out. SHE, on the other had, would begin
suffering
immediately from lack of any income, until she landed a
job--probably
minimum wage. So HE benefits from choices they BOTH made, and she
suffers.

My parents were married for 50 years. They raised 8 children with
her
as
a
stay at home mom and him as the bread winner. If, during those
years,
he
had decided to walk out (never a possibility in real life), should
she
have
had to support and raise us on minimum wage? Just because she
trusted
that
their commitment to each other and the choices they made as a
couple
were
for the rest of their lives? My brother and his wife have 6
children.
He
works outside the home, and she homeschools the children. How
could
you
even begin to think it is ok for him to walk out and expect her to
be
instantly self-supporting, while he goes on his merry way with his
nearly
6
digit income?

Marriage should not be a "his choice-her choice" deal, but an "our
choice"
thing. And NOBODY should end up totally screwed when divorce
rears
its
ugly
head!

Prior to the women's movement that started in the 60's marriage was
based
on
women finding an ideal candidate to support her and any children
they
might
have together. The man's role was to work outside the home and the
woman's
role was to work within the home. Under these role definitions
divorce
was
rare and women would typically file for divorce only under extreme
circumstances.

As the women's movement began to take shape, women were some of the
biggest,
most vocal detractors of the equality for pay and opportunities for
other
women. Their husbands' careers were the financial lifelines for
their
families and the attempts to strengthen the women's role in the
workplace
were seen as weakening the man's role, and therefore a direct
assault on
women at home.

The definition of marriage roles changed with the women's movement.
As
women became more successful in the workplace, the divorce rate
began to
grow. SAH women viewed these changes as discrimination against
them,
and
this lead to measures to protect women. The concept of alimony grew
out
of
changes in the workplace. What had worked for SAH women previously
was
falling apart because other women were replacing their husband's
role,
and
women viewed the changes as being a plot against them. ***** This in
turn
led to
the concept of men owing women for the changes based on a sense of
entitlement to maintain what they had enjoyed for years with male
only
providers in the workplace.******

This is where I disagree with you, Bob. It was not a sense of
*entitlement*! These women HAD done therepart, and did not deserve to
be
left high and dry, with no skills and no way to support themselves and
their
children. It was only right that they be given a helping hand into
the
workplace!

I am not suggesting that women did not do their part. What changed when
the
divorce rate started rising dramatically was the sources where women
found
economic security. Previously their main source of financial security
came
from their husband's income and the SAHM model was the norm.

Women were not left high and dry." With the advent of the women's
movement
divorces became easier the obtain and women began entering the workplace
in
record numbers. And simultaneously women were given multiple choices on
how
to achieve economic security. Added to the husband as provider option
were
options for women to gain income via career or through government
actions as
their surrogate husband providing welfare, WIC, affirmative action in
hiring, increased CS awards, garnishments if support wasn't paid,
college
admission preferences, military service, women headed small business
loans
and preferential tax treatment,. So women ended up with multiple
economic
options to select from as replacements for their husband's income.

Men on the other hand, ended up with less than one option. Men have
always
had only one option in their role of being the income earner. But with
all
the changes that favored women the pressure on men to be a provider
became
more intense. With more women entering the workplace, employment
options
for men started to decline. and simultaneously men were asked to pay
increased CS, mortgage payment on houses they no longer lived in,
apartment
rental, alimony, visitation expenses, and dating.

My opinion is these changes are within a zero sum game. Every advantage
women won to prevent them from being left "high and dry" was taken away
from
men. And the reason men are described as "not changing" as fast as
women is
because men have fewer options to change to. And the reason men are
described as being "commitment phobic" is because men recognize how the
landscape has changed to their disadvantage.

snip

What bothers me about what you say here is that it sounds like two
individuals living together out of convenience--not like a lifetime
partnership.

That's not exactly what I am saying. What marriage has evolved into a
one-sided relationship where the women hold all the good cards. All
they
have to do is exercise their option to no-fault divorce and the marriage
is
done, even over the objections of the husband. And the government will
step
in as surrogate husband and take money away from the husband to give the
woman replacement economic security in the form of CS, alimony,
property,
and attorney fees. It's not a "partnership" when one party is virtually
guaranteed custody of children, at least half the assets, predictable CS
awards, and alimony while the other party is guaranteed to pay for all
those
options awarded to women.

As I understand it, the chief motivators for women in marriage are
financial
security, companionship, and a good relationship. For men the prime
motivators of marriage are approval and regular sex. When divorce
occurs
women withdraw their approval of men and the sex. But the women get to
keep
the financial security, plus the emotional security of companionship and
relationships with the children.

snip

But that's the point--it is not necessarily "women's choices." It is
a
choice that couples sit down and make together--because that's what
they
BOTH want for their children! So, in the end, only the woman would
pay
the
price for the couple's choice? That is just as bad as only the man
paying
the price for divorce!

My point is - women can sit down with their husbands and make choices
they
both agree to. They then implement those choices. But later on the
women
can renege on her choices and replace her original choices with other
choices off the menu of options. As long as women are allowed to renege
on
the choices they make, marriage rates will suffer.

"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.
==
It is also very common for the dad/husband to prefer the wife/mother stay
home.
My preference is for one parent to stay home to rear the children so they
need not
grow up in daycare centers. I have no preference for which parent does this.
As a practical matter,
usually the parent with the lower earnings capacity stays home.
==
==

I suppose what I am saying is that I can see no way, in the era of
no-fault divorce, of protecting stay-at-home mothers without opening the
door to all kinds of abuse.

My understanding is that the evidence from states that have presumptive
joint custody is that divorce rates fall. This would be what one would
expect, given that (1) wives initiate most divorces, (2) without
presumptive joint custody wives nearly always get custody of the
children, and (3) expectations of custody are crucial to the decision
whether or not to seek a divorce (see Margaret Brinig's research). So
50/50 custody is likely to a reduction in the absolute number of
divorces.

But there would still be divorces. I can see no reason why a
stay-at-home mother should be able to decide to use no-fault divorce to
break up her family, and then make her husband continue to pay her, in
recognition of her supposed victim status.

If people are concerned about justice for everyone (and not just for
stay-at-home wives), I can see no alternative to making the treatment of
spouses depend on the grounds for the divorce.




TeacherMama wrote:

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.

"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.

Father Drew wrote in message
news:5sNIa.161285$eJ2.84088@fed1read07...
Short, sweet, shoot it down. I can counter argue just about anything you
throw at it. I am looking for holes, so suprise me.
-Drew

Both parents made a 50/50 decision to concieve a child, therefore...

1. Custody is 50/50 assuming one parent is not abusive
2. No C$ necessary since the child is with the other parent 50% of the
time

What happens if the other parent can't afford the child their 50 percent of
the time?

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:5sNIa.161285$eJ2.84088@fed1read07...
Short, sweet, shoot it down. I can counter argue just about anything
you
throw at it. I am looking for holes, so suprise me.
-Drew

Both parents made a 50/50 decision to concieve a child, therefore...

1. Custody is 50/50 assuming one parent is not abusive
2. No C$ necessary since the child is with the other parent 50% of
the
time

I'd still be interested in what you'd do with a marriage where one parent
stayed at home with the children for 15 years, while the other developed
job
skills and rose through the ranks at work. Each did the job they had
agreed
to do during the marriage--but now one is left with no job skills and the
other is sitting pretty, salary wise. Sure, the working parent will have
to
learn the housekeeping skills--but they can bumble through that while
still
having plenty of $$ to pay the bills. The former stay-at-hme parent will
have a nicely organized house, with very little to pay the bills. How
could
it be ok for the working parent to walk away, leaving the stay at home
parent in poverty?

My knee-jerk reaction is that it depends on the reason for divorce. If the
wage earning parent initiated a no-fault divorce, they have an obligation.
If the non-wage earner initiated a no-fault divorce, I say "live in poverty"

Like it or not, as adult we are responsible for our decisions, and our
decisions have consequences. That, we as adults, make decisions that can
effect those who can not make the decisions, we, as the decision maker, have
an obligation to consider the effect of our decision on those that can not
make the decisions. You can't escape that fact, as much as we might like
to.

IOW, under no-fault divorce, it should be the parent that didn't want the
divorce that gets first choice in the custody determination. If it is a
fault divorce, it is the parent whose at fault that get first choice.

In a no-fault divorce, the parent that decides to walk away, does so knowing
that as a consequence, they walk with the property they acquired before the
marriage, 1/2 of what was acquired during the marriage, and they pay CS, if
necessary, to the other parent. If it is a fault divorce, it is the parent
not at fault that gets first choice in a custody determination, while the at
fault parent gets to pay CS, if necessary, what they acquired prior to the
marriage, and 1/2 of what was acquired during the marriage.

Many psychological/social/behavioral experiments show that the expectation
of consequences has a major influence on one's behavior. For example, most
people will cheat, if they think they won't get caught or there are little
consequences. Most people, won't cheat if they think they will get caught,
or the consequences are severe.

As an aside, The threat of a severe consequence is a primary justification
for the death penalty (a deterent). The problem is that most murders are
commited in the heat of passion (on impulse). Therefore the death penalty
has little effect on the murder rate. In order for any consequence to be a
deterent to one's behavoir, the consequence must exceed the benefit of
committing the act, and one must think that the chances of suffering the
consequence are good. (Also, beyond a certain point increasing the
consequence has little effect on behavoir)